Romney Live on Health Care Reform
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Here’s a link to video that will allow you to watch it. His speech is going on right now, apparently.
I tried to embed it, but msnbc’s site screwed up the embed redirecting me instead to a different story. So follow the link instead.
Bluntly, I think he has some ‘splaining to do. Republicans, at the very least, have to trust he will tear down Obamacare as President. I will update in a bit and add some to all of this, particularly some questionable remarks he made on the subject. For now, watch and discuss.
Update: Here’s what I think will hobble his campaign. Here’s Romney in late 2007 on Romneycare:
ROMNEY: I’m a federalist. I don’t believe in applying what works in one state to all states if different states have different circumstances…Now, I happen to like what we did. I think it’s a good model for other states. Maybe not every state but most, and so what I’d do at the federal level is give every state the same kind of flexibility we got from the federal government as well as some carrots and sticks to actually get all their citizens insured. And I think a lot of states will choose what we did. I wouldn’t tell them they have to do our plan…
MR. RUSSERT: So if a state chose a mandate, it wouldn’t bother you?
MR. ROMNEY: I’d think it’s a terrific idea. I think you’re going to find when it’s all said and done, after all these states that are the laboratories of democracy, get their chance to try their own plans, but those who follow the path that we pursued will find it’s the best path, and we’ll end up with a nation that’s taken a mandate approach.
So what Romney is saying is that 1) he doesn’t want federally controlled healthcare but 2) he really, really likes it when states impose mandates. Now that is easier to defend constitutionally, and it certainly allows Romney to say with a straight face that he would take apart Obamacare. The problem is that things might be, well, pretty much as Greg Sargent said:
But conservatives don’t care about this distinction — they hate the mandate on the state or federal level — and this now shows that Romney hoped the idea would spread to “most” states, and across the country.
So… do you care about this distinction? Are you willing to accept him liking mandates, but only on the state level?
Honestly, I am not satisfied.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
i trust Romney to be a squishy Beltway RINO and nothing more…
that is why the usual suspects and the MFM are pushing him as a “front runner” instead of the “never was” he rightly is.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 5/12/2011 @ 12:03 pmRomney is a non-starter for the GOP nomination. He should clubbed with RomneyCare every time he appears in a debate or townhall.
EC (dda60e) — 5/12/2011 @ 12:37 pmI won’t vote for him cause he’s a whore what spends all his time desperately pining for the presidency. He needs to get a life apart from This-Is-Me-Not-Being-President…Yet.
It’s just not attractive.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/12/2011 @ 12:38 pmYes, if I thought that’s really his opinion, and I otherwise liked him for president, then this would reassure me. I’d say “good; let him be president, then, and not a state governor”. It’s the reverse of Palin, when running for governor of Alaska, ducking questions about Roe v Wade by pointing out that as governor she wouldn’t be able to do anything about it, so her opinion didn’t matter.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 12:44 pmYou can not be a good mormon and talk about the right to abortion and you can not be for mandates on people and believe that it is allowed by the constitution. Taking these positions and changing them reveals a lack of principles.It is more of the hope and change thing, if you elect him you would be hoping that he does not change with every poll release.
dunce (b89258) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:05 pmPreviously, I thought Romney had the potential to unite the GOP establishment and TEA Party Conservatives, plus attract a hefty majority of Independents to defeat Obama.
However, Romney’s unwillingness or his inability to distance himself from MassCare reduces him to just another wannabe. I’m lookin’ for street fighter, not a equivocator.
ropelight (3ac26a) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:12 pmI’m just curious: are there any Mitt Romney fans who don’t also like Mitch Daniels?
I realize that Daniels has not really been very inspiring either, especially from a confidence standpoint. I agree with ropelight that we must have a fighter.
Maybe what we need is a RINO primary and an OUTLAW primary, and then those two square off.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:15 pmbtw, I like Mitch Daniels a lot. He’s easily on my short list, based on his leadership record, but I need someone with more confidence than I think he’s been showing. And he needs to fill in the blanks on national security.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:17 pmWhy not? State mandates almost certainly are allowed by the federal constitution. If you think they’re not, please cite the clause that prohibits them.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:29 pmRomney’s problem is that, while a mandate may be the only way to make the numbers work (even in theory), forcing people to do something they don’t want to do is so inimical to conservative values that no conservative would ever think of imposing such a mandate.
And if Romney can’t be trusted to get this right, he can’t be trusted on anything else.
steve (369bc6) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:29 pmThe big problem with Romney is the same as the big problem with all the other candidates:
Romney is a dick.
Huckabee is a dick.
Gingrich is a dick.
Hillary Clinton is a dick.
Ron Paul is a nitwit, and also… a dick.
Sarah Palin, though I hate to say it because I like her personally… is a shallow thinker and very poorly-read (trust me I can smell it) and also… sorry, but — a dick.
Barack Hussein Obama is nothing else but a dick. And also even more shallow than Palin, even though it seems paradoxical. What goddamn luck do we have as a nation? The only man in recent public life who was more shallow than Obama was… George W. Bush.
I give up.
d. in c. (352bcf) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:30 pmReally? No, I don’t trust you. If you think you can smell her reading list you’re nuts. Tell me, how well-read did you think Reagan was? Or Bush Jr? Have you seen Bush’s reading list that was released for one year? It would take me five years to make it through that list, and I’ve got lots more time.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:33 pmReally? I didn’t agree with him on so many things, but he seemed like a deep thinker to me. And Milhouse is right that he certainly was a reader.
I don’t think Palin is like Gingrich in being academically elite, but she’s probably quite sharp. And also quite cynical, I admit. I guess I’m willing to keep an open mind to her in the debates, but I just don’t think she can be elected, and I sure hope we find someone with much more experience (though it’s not like Palin doesn’t have some substantial experience).
I think the problem with Palin is actually similar to the one with Bush Jr in that their shtick actually causes them to avoid looking too elite if they can help it.
I think Palin’s actually handled the issues pretty well over the past year+.
But I do agree with d in c’s conclusion, regardless. We need a much better class of leaders. And perhaps in a few years, we’ll actually have that, but right now, it’s tricky.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:43 pmThe only man in recent public life who was more shallow than Obama was… George W. Bush
Other than the caricature of President Bush that has been pushed, there is scant evidence to support this assertion, and much to dispute it.
JD (194dc5) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:48 pmi am about desperate enough to say i want chris christie…
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:51 pmI’ll take Chris Christie.
And yes, he’s not really experienced enough to be the ideal. He’s not perfectly in line with me on all issues, either. But he fights on the budget, he leads in an assertive manner, and he can get his point across in a way John Mccain certainly can’t.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:55 pmMittenz will NEVER be the President of the US, and neither will Newt. The sooner Rethugs! figure this out, the better. Because if either of these guys are nominated, it will essentially guarantee Obama’s 2nd term *shudder*…
And that would be a catastrophe rolled into a disaster shuffled into an apocalypse…
HE SAID SHUFFLED IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH AS OBAMA!11!1! RACIST!
Bob Reed (5f2db5) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:55 pmChristie’s weak on the second amendment and on global warmening.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:58 pmHe’s also needed in New Jersey. He needs to clean up that mess before he attempts anything new.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 1:58 pmDaniels/Cain or vice versa. Mitt will be a disaster. On steroids.
JD (194dc5) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:01 pmAgreed. And both are pretty troubling, but neither are priority one (the debt is). With guns, I hope we can keep Court precedent on this issue, but that probably requires sane judicial nominations. Obama has already done tremendous damage to the bench, IMO, but I know this is a relatively weak point for Christie.
Well, that’s true too, though I am not sure he will be reelected in NJ. It was shocking that he won the first term, and he’s going to have a difficult time winning another, despite such a great term so far.
Regardless, I’ll welcome Christie to the debate. He isn’t perfect, but he would be a massive improvement, and I think he would win a general election.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:03 pmI do care about the distinction as far as Constitutional questions are concerned. But I will not accept a candidate whose belief is that all states should force people to buy products they don’t want. I was luke-warm on Romney before this, and now I’m dead set against him.
Bellerophon (5b7b27) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:03 pmIt isn’t fair to compare Cain to Joe Biden, but Cain does occasionally say things that I think could be liabilities. I guess Biden is proof that this isn’t a fatal flaw.
I also do not think Cain’s experience as CEO is quite enough, but I do love the way this man talks, and I just get the impression he would be a good and honorable president.
My guess is that Palin will be the VP nominee again. Is that crazy?
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:05 pmI suggest Palin/Romney, so we can get it out of our systems.
JD (194dc5) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:07 pmNY commies protesting millionaires not paying their fair share in taxes so how do they expect the Public Schools to get money?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:08 pmUm no just say no to Flip Flopney.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:09 pm#14: “there is scant evidence…”. WTF?!! Bush’s entire record illustrates it. It’s, as they say, turtles all the way down — but even that view doesn’t show off Bush’s appalling shallowness in all its truly embarrassing light. The man read lots of books, you say. I read a lot of poetry. Who fucking cares? Did he ever read the Koran? He was involved in endless Mideast nonsense that will never be solved — did he know the meaning of basic Islamic terms like “waqf” or “hudna”? You tell me.
Milhouse #12: You’re confusing much-read with well-read or deeply-read. I’m surprised at you because I generally admire your reasoning, but you’re flat-out wrong here.
Also, you’re quite mistaken to lump the bright and vivid and up-to-date Reagan with all these other chuckleheads. I don’t judge a well-read man by whether he’s been through “Critias” or Han Fei Tzu or Marx or The Interpretation of Dreams or what-not (although it all helps), but by whether he/she can come to grips with reality in a fashion that non-stupid people can accept. I think John Lennon was a political idiot, but judging by his character I’d say he was more substantive than say John Kerry. One of the most “well-read” people I know has never heard of Christopher Marlowe.
It’s a big world, right?
d. in c. (68ff46) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:10 pmWhy not? State mandates almost certainly are allowed by the federal constitution. If you think they’re not, please cite the clause that prohibits them.
I think this deserves its own discussion. I don’t see how the federal government can not order people to buy a product, but the states can. That’s sort of like saying the federal government is limited, but the states are unlimited.
States do mandate things, but there are always ways to avoid it legitimately. To own a car, you have to have a valid insurance policy (at least you do here in Florida) that meets certain minimal requirements. But the mandate kicks in only if you drive or own a car. If you don’t own a car, and choose not to drive, then you don’t have to buy the insurance. [There are of course a lot of people who simply ignore the law and continue to drive, but I’m focusing on the theory here.]
But there’s no equivalent opt-out with health care.
So could someone explain it to me?
kishnevi (2d88a8) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:13 pmMy guess is that Palin will be the VP nominee again. Is that crazy?
Not impossible. But I think it unlikely. There are a considerable number of people who wouldn’t accept her on the ticket as either Pres. or Vice-Pres. And those that would be fine with her on the ticket would probably prefer to see her in the top slot.
And, while I have no idea of what she thinks, I would guess that she would want to serve as VP only with a nominee who could be considered a trustworthy conservative–and if a trustworthy conservative was the nominee, would you really need her on the ticket?
And of course she might not want to run as VP on any ticket, or even run at all; but she also might be persuaded to run with Romney or someone of that ilk “for the greater good” so to speak.
So I would mark your suggestion as improbable but possible.
kishnevi (2d88a8) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:19 pmI can smell it too
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:20 pmI do think the federal government ought to be limited from a variety of political questions that we should let the states be able to deal with in their various ways.
That’s not necessarily saying states are completely unlimited, but simple less limited.
Before the 14th amendment, perhaps this was more realistic. Regardless, that’s my ideal. I wouldn’t mind at all if Mass wanted a mandate, and Texas didn’t. Why not?
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:20 pmHell.
One big problem with this is how it was a 2008 era concept. Has our party gone nowhere since 2008? BTW, we lost in 2008, so let’s make sure the answer is no.
A Daniels/Cain ticket is so much better than a Romney/Palin. And I think most earnest supporters of Romney and Palin have to admit that.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:22 pmPresident: Sarah Palin
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:26 pmVice President: Bobby Jindal
State: John Bolton
Defense: Alan West
Treasury: Mitch Daniels
Attorney General: Michael McConnell
Labor: Chris Christie
Homeland Security: Bruce Schneier (charged with breaking it up)
Interior: Royce Lamberth (charged with sorting out the mess from the inside)
Education: Newt Gingrich (charged with winding it up)
Energy: Todd Palin (charged with cutting it to size; this lets the Senate confirm him, so there’s no Hillary-like problem with him being an active First Dude)
Press Secretary: Andrew Breitbart
National Security Advisor: Dick Cheney
Small Business Administration: Herman Cain
That is pretty much the case. States are not limited to enumerated powers, unless their own constitutions do so. In principle they have plenary power, and the federal constitution puts very few limits on that. I see nothing in the federal constitution that would forbid MassCare. Maybe you can think of something.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:30 pmPalin or whoever for prez.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:31 pmIf a state were to make the eating of broccoli mandatory, and nothing in the state constitution prevented it, then I don’t see what grounds any federal court would have for intervening.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:31 pmNo, feet, those are truffles that you smell.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:32 pmI don’t think Treasury suits Mitch, and Alan West is not legally qualified for Sec Def under federal law.
But honestly, I think the idea of Todd being confirmed by the Senate is actually quite clever and worthwhile.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:32 pmWell, I would mind because it’s an outrageous intrusion on liberty. But I see no legal grounds for a federal court to do anything about it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:33 pmmilhouse
i would say that Lawrence v. Texas and Roe v. Wade, if consistently applied, would stop a state from forcing you to eat broccoli.
Which isn’t the constitution, per se, but it fwiw…
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:34 pmBTW, I do like Alan West quite a lot. I’m not trying to disrespect this great man.
But General Petraeus, Alan West, etc, are not symbolic of civilian leadership, and that’s a good concept. We should promote our best servicemen to the top of the military’s chain of command, but lead a civilian as secretary of defense, or at least someone who hasn’t been in the military for a very long time, and in my opinion, someone who was not career military.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:35 pmWhy is West not legally qualified? His seven year cooling-off period runs out this year.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:36 pmAbout the best argument I can make in favor of Romney’s assertion that states ought to be able to mandate health care coverage whereas the federal government ought not to be able to is the following: If a particular state chooses to engage in a very restrictive mandate, it’s citizens have recourse, i.e. relocating to another less-restrictive state. Did any of you see that Vermont is moving towards a mandatory single-payer plan for its citizens? That may be their prerogative, but if I were a Vermont resident I think I would be pricing real estate in New Hampshire right about now.
If we go to a national health care plan — whether single payer or Obamacare — on the other hand, what recourse does an American citizen have? For that reason alone I might try to debate the merits of state mandates, though my heart really wouldn’t be in it.
JVW (a500c6) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:37 pmThey probably would, but neither of them is valid law, because they have no basis in the constitution. The Supreme Court was ultra vires in handing them down.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:37 pmYes, it’s an outrageous intrusion liberty. I just think if Mass wants to do that, and are well informed on this political issue (not the Obamacare fiasco of dishonest midnight politics, but a real debate before the election, and an honest message from the voters of intent) then that’s their business.
I guess I should find a way to say that I think Mass should be able to enact stupid laws that I don’t agree with, to some extent. They should also let Texas or Oklahoma not do that, and we should not be tied together too tightly by an overbearing federal government.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:38 pmI think Daniels/Blackburn would be a very very formidable ticket she’s very very very in synch wif Mr. Daniels on the spendings and she would mollify the lifeydoodles
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:38 pmI did not know that. I stand corrected, but I still think it’s not really the best choice for the reason I explained.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:39 pmlifeydoodle mollification is an essential first step to having a for reals adult conversation about maybe just maybe saving our sad little country from its squalid and dreary fate
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:40 pmFeet, did it ever occur to you that stopping the slaughter of millions of innocent babies might save our sad little country from its squalid and dreary fate? That maybe this squalid and dreary fate is, dare I say, a punishment for that slaughter?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:44 pmnope not for a second freedom is key I think Mr. Milhouse and I’m just not in favor of an institution as morally perverse as the United States government getting all up in hoochie’s coochies
People can make their own choices and live with the consequences that’s what Mr. God made freedoms for.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:47 pmoh. hoochies’ coochies I mean .. I knew that looked wrong when I wrote it but I couldn’t figure out why … I’ma make some coffee
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:49 pmtalk among yourselves
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/12/2011 @ 2:58 pmHow about freedom for all the babies, Mr feets? Not much freedom when you’re cut up into little pieces before having even had a chance to breath air, let alone eat sammin or play magic or watch twilight.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/12/2011 @ 3:06 pmIt’s tragic but nothing for it
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/12/2011 @ 3:07 pmI think there is something for it though, and it just involves teaching people and hoping they make the right choices.
For example, f**king is fun AND the biological outcome of that action is pregnancy. Both are undeniably true, but you can’t trump biology. I don’t care who you are.
Makewi (0864f9) — 5/12/2011 @ 3:31 pmYou mean state government, really. Roe got the feds in control of the issue. Without Roe, red states could outlaw abortion, and the more corrupt blue states would tend to keep it legal.
Also, I have to admit that Milhouse’s point could be right, whether by divine retribution or merely the sad nature of a country that is willing to kill babies generally being unwilling to look out for the next generation’s national debt outlook.
We are a selfish people that prioritize me me me over taking care of the future. In the long run, everyone suffers for it.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 5:42 pmRomney today went to great length to voice his enthusiasm for allowing state governments to substitute their decisions for those of individuals Mr. Dustin.
Yay Team State Government Fascism!
But I’m not in that camp at all and people can make their own choices about fetuses and stuff as far as I’m concerned.
As an aside though does anyone think anyone will be calling this douche a “frontrunner” after today?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/12/2011 @ 5:55 pmThe idea that he was ever a frontrunner is laughable, no?
JD (29e1cd) — 5/12/2011 @ 6:12 pmOn this, it’s clear you and Milhouse see eye to eye. And I certainly understand where you both are coming from. It is an affront to liberty to force someone to buy something they don’t want.
I just think if a state’s political outcome is to force everyone to buy something, that’s wrong, but their business. If some state wanted to outlaw kissing, I’d think it was stupid, intrusive, but I’d accept it so long as it wasn’t my state.
So, where will Romney’s supporters go?
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 6:15 pmthe speech was forever ago and nobody has a transcript – not even his own site
he wants you to watch the video while you scroll through his douchey powerpoint
I would definitely think a frontrunner would have his act more together than this.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/12/2011 @ 6:19 pmThat is incredibly out of step with 2011, I think.
I think the mere fact this guy was out campaigned by John Mccain explained his likely chances in 2012.
Might I ask, if someone put a gun to your head and demanded you pick Palin or Romney for… California Governor, which would you pick? I’m not trying to trap you in some point… just curious.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 6:21 pmEight hours and they still don’t have video, a power point presentation, how about TPS reports while they are at it.
narciso lopez (79ddc3) — 5/12/2011 @ 6:29 pmI would be delighted to have Sarah Palin as governor of California at any moment… it’s not a particularly important job and I think it would be a good place for her to start rebuilding some credibility after her the fiasco in Alaska.
But I wouldn’t support Romney… he’s unctuous and frightfully, hyperbolically caucasian. He needs to tone that down.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/12/2011 @ 6:31 pmI just meant her not her the
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/12/2011 @ 6:31 pmWhitman was the Romney prototype, complete with the apprenticeship with Bain Capital, and sharing the likes of Mike ‘Iceberg’ Murphy, about 90K a month for sterling advice.
narciso lopez (79ddc3) — 5/12/2011 @ 6:39 pmWhitman was a horror show watching her piss all that money away was very very disturbing – she’s the female Tiger Woods.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/12/2011 @ 6:41 pmOnly one man can save America.
Ony yesterday he said we should not have killed Bin Laden.
That might hurt his 1 1/2% support a little bit.
I’ll give you one guess.
FIAT CURRENCY!!!!!!11ty!!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/12/2011 @ 8:53 pm_____________________________________________
But conservatives don’t care about this distinction
That’s because there is no distinction between either the federal or state government forcing people to buy health insurance. Moreover, to try to pawn that off as a meaningful difference is 10 times more irritating when, at the same time, the medical system is reeling from the growing underclass of illegal immigrants.
As with Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr and Jr, almost every time a dumb policy or response has emanated from a Republican president, it’s when he’s leaned left. Varying degrees of liberal sentiment apparently infect the mind of just about every person in the human race. So expecting ideological perfection out of Romney, or Palin, or Christie, or Gingrich, or Huckabee, etc, is pretty much expecting a miracle.
Right now, the least we can hope for — and the most pressing concern — is to get rid of the ultra-liberal in the White House. And then assume his replacement won’t be any squishier than he (or she) has to be.
Mark (411533) — 5/12/2011 @ 9:06 pmOne difference is that if some states make this mistake and others do not, that’s more democratic and we can see better how it affects each state respectively.
Another is that it’s easier to move to another state than to move to another country.
I’d love for each state to try different solutions to health care. People in blue states probably favor more intrusion and control, and so long as they keep that to their state, that’s fine with me.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 9:10 pmIn that case, Daley, don’t look here:
kishnevi (d785be) — 5/12/2011 @ 9:10 pmhttp://www.dailypaul.com/164430/politico-ron-paul-to-announce-presidential-candidacy-friday-morning-on-abc-good-morning-america-7-am-et
And yes, I think we see pretty well that the mandate didn’t work well in Mass, but so long as states do not bail eachother out (via the federal government) that’s fine with me too.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/12/2011 @ 9:14 pm“I think the mere fact this guy was out campaigned by John Mccain explained his likely chances in 2012.”
– Dustin
By McCain and Huckabee, and that after spending $45 million of his own money.
Leviticus (b774d9) — 5/13/2011 @ 12:47 pmProbably not the same person, but maybe…
http://twitter.com/#!/nitecruzr
Anonymous (1dd84c) — 5/13/2011 @ 6:43 pmhttp://en.netlog.com/nitecruzr
http://www.flickr.com/people/10878471@N02
http://www.flixster.com/user/nitecruzr
http://www.myspace.com/78890054
http://www.stumbleupon.com/stumbler/nitecruzr/
and
http://www.facebook.com/chuck.croll