Two cheers (Okay, one cheer) for Mitt Romney
[Posted by Karl]
Having criticized Mitt Romney for having little to say on tax and entitlement reform, it’s only fair to note his speech to Americans for Prosperity addresses the latter:
I believe we can save Social Security with a few commonsense reforms. First, there will be no change for retirees or those near retirement. No change. Second, for the next generation of retirees, we should slowly raise the retirement age. And, finally, for the next generation of retirees, we should slow the growth in benefits for those with higher incomes.
***
Unlike President Obama, our next president must protect Medicare, improve the program, and keep it sustainable for generations to come. Several principles will guide my efforts.
First, Medicare should not change for anyone in the program or soon to be in it. We should honor our commitments to our seniors.
Second, as with Social Security, tax hikes are not the solution. We couldn’t tax our way out of unfunded liabilities so large, even if we wanted to.
Third, tomorrow’s seniors should have the freedom to choose what their health coverage looks like. Younger Americans today, when they turn 65, should have a choice between traditional Medicare and other private healthcare plans that provide at least the same level of benefits. Competition will lower costs and increase the quality of healthcare for tomorrow’s seniors.
The federal government will help seniors pay for the option they choose, with a level of support that ensures all can obtain the coverage they need. Those with lower incomes will receive more generous assistance. Beneficiaries can keep the savings from less expensive options, or they can choose to pay more for a costlier plan.
Finally, as with Social Security, the eligibility age should slowly increase to keep pace with increases in longevity.
The media is characterizing this as embracing Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal, but it’s closer to Yuval Levin’s “confident market solution,” or — as David Brooks would have it — the Domenici-Rivilin plan, as Romney would retain traditional Medicare as an option for future generations.
However, Brooks — or the NYT headline writer, if that applies to op-eds — is spinning to label Romney as “the serious one” just because Romney gave a serious speech. There is still reason to question whether Romney would spend political capital on entitlement reform. Moreover, inasmuch as Romney expressly advocated turning Medicaid back to the states, one might ask what justification he had for attacking Perry’s similar suggestion for Social Security as beyond the pale. Romney’s track record may leave many thinking his entitlement reform proposals are just another necessary pander to the grassroots of the GOP.
Nevertheless, I must give Romney one cheer for finally advocating entitlement reforms, because if nominated, he will be zealously attacked by Team Obama and the establishment media in 2012 on the issue. Indeed, as panders go, it’s likely Romney’s riskiest one to date. As Ramesh Ponnuru notes, when considering Obama’s two playbooks, it generally would be difficult for Obama to attack Romney as both a serial flip-flopper and an extremist. However, Romney’s embrace of entitlement reform would offer the left the opportunity to scare voters with the prospect of what unchecked GOP government would mean for Social Security and Medicare — even if the right would almost surely end up disappointed on that score.
–Karl
Ding!
Karl (f8f210) — 11/9/2011 @ 6:25 amHaving seen this play book by the liberals so often forgive me for passing on this …. in primaries the MSM flock to the most liberal Republican ….. they brand him/her the only smart choice for Republicans …. the other candidates are radical lunatics ….. once he is selected the MSM decides the moderate is really a lunatic right winger.
Evidence McCain and Dole. They loved Bush 1 in 1980. They loved McCain in 2000 when they thought Bush II was a crazy right winger.
It is pathetic and Romney is a dud. A recipe for very low turn-out next year among the base.
Mitt is an Ivy League Liberal who is pursuing a market segmentation strategy to getting elected. I praise him for his smarts but he is a liberal who will moderately help in turning things around.
But the Ivy League Republicans all love him. He appeals to their principle-less bourgeoisie existence. Their hopes of keeping the un-washed masses in their place by talking Reagan but delivering Calvin Coolidge. By codling industry while craping on entrepreneurs.
And yes, Mitt’s base is Ivy League libs who love Crony Capitalism and are not too keen on having a dynamic society. To this group of fake Conservatives, if only the Democrats would stop giving away money to the unwashed, then they could vote for their “progressivity.”
One man’s opinion,
ODB (0f13a8) — 11/9/2011 @ 6:41 amExactly. “Here is what the evil right-wingers will do to your benefits — if we gave them the votes to pass such a thing . . . which, of course, is something we won’t do. Booga booga!”
Icy (461886) — 11/9/2011 @ 6:42 amWhy can’t Romney just scare older voters honestly like Perry? None of this pussyfooting around. Sure.Fire.Vote.Getter.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/9/2011 @ 6:46 amhttp://reason.com/blog/2011/11/07/mitt-romney-loves-medicare-very-much-and
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/9/2011 @ 6:48 amIF you want to really drive entitlement reform, tell seniors that if nothing is done, their benefits will be cut or the programs will fail, unless reform happens RIGHT NOW.
Best part is that it’s true.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/9/2011 @ 7:11 amAnd “Barack Obama has ALREADY cut your Medicare benefits, and will continue to do so, to allow people who haven’t paid in to get the same benefits.”
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/9/2011 @ 7:14 amfDR,
go see what fdr said about this horrible illegal program it was meant as a political tool to keep wealthy industrialists from gaining too much power
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/9/2011 @ 7:26 amIF you want to really drive entitlement reform, tell seniors that if nothing is done, their benefits will be cut or the programs will fail, unless reform happens RIGHT NOW.
Best part is that it’s true.
Ummm… yeah, best part (for Democrats) is that it’s not true. If nothing is done, SS and Medicare is safe for current (and near future) seniors. It’s not safe for everyone else, and that’s precisely the dilemma which the Dems continue to capitalize on.
beer 'n pretzels (2f4b27) — 11/9/2011 @ 7:42 amNo, it’s already in the red, and every additional payroll cut, makes that much more selfevident.
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/9/2011 @ 7:49 amIs Mitt Romney a Danite Knight?
paul (51eafb) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:16 amRomney has no character. Rick Perry is my guy!
*ColonelHaiku… filling in for Dustin, cuz I miss that guy!
Dustin* (09a0f9) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:22 amRomney seems to have Pethokoukis almost on board, too.
ColonelHaiku (09a0f9) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:24 amMoreover, inasmuch as Romney expressly advocated turning Medicaid back to the states, one might ask what justification he had for attacking Perry’s similar suggestion for Social Security as beyond the pale
Actually, it’s rather easy to distinguish the two: the states are already intimately involved in administering and funding Medicaid, very much unlike Social Security.
JBS (4fe729) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:37 am== he is a liberal who will moderately help in turning things around==
What happened to the Kascich revolution yesterday in Ohio vividly shows the reason “true blue” conservatives– whose economic ideals and goals most of us here strongly support and pine for– cannot go in to make immediate change with a sledgehammer. Unfortunately, the big important changes that are needed to preserve the republic will take time and require incredible finesse. Whomever it ends up being, let’s try to concentrate on nominating a presidential candidate who is moderate enough and unscary enough to be elected by the American electorate at large. We need all Republicans of every stripe, a whole bunch of Independents and a few disgruntled Dems in the tent in order to accomplish this in 2012.
As in 2010, let’s spend our time pushing and supporting the most viable conservative candidates possible in each of our own state and federal senate and house races to be there both to channel and to back up the new Republican president. Let’s do a great job of vetting them.
The continuing internal team R bickering is destructive and I for one find it very disheartening.
elissa (e6dedc) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:38 amHey I can see my previous views outside on my backporch
-Mitt Romney
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:44 amIs it too late for Pawlenty to get back in? Why the heck did he drop out so quickly? True his one debate performance was pretty bad. It seemed like he wasn’t getting much support from the Tea Party wing though.
Gerald A (9d78e8) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:49 amIt’s dumb to cover anything Romney says because he means none of it. Not one word. He will say whatever poll-tested, consultant-vetted crap he thinks will resonate, and then say the polar opposite the very next day (and occasionally the very next sentence). All politicians learn to do this of course, but Romney didn’t have to. It’s in his DNA. So spare yourself the effort, Karl. And spare us the drivel.
Kevin Stafford (abdb87) — 11/9/2011 @ 9:04 amWell said Mr.Stafford
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/9/2011 @ 9:08 amThe left oppose fighting wars for Israel but have no problem fighting wars against Israel.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/9/2011 @ 9:10 amMitt Romney promising to turn around half a trillion in additional entitlement spending over what Obama wants to spend.
There are endless examples of this sort of demagogue. Of course, to the Romney shills (obviously I am not referring to Karl), this can be excused with some bizarre explanation of how Mitt really meant to reform stuff, but these folks are dishonest. That comment clearly was designed to reassure people they would get more entitlements.
This reminds me a lot of Obama, as Romney often does. Obama has often made good statements that can be read as a promise to reform, but he’s also pandered to people who crave entitlements. There really is no other explanation for Romney’s hissy fit about the GOP ‘abolishing’ social security if Romney isn’t nominated.
Romney’s most common complaint about Obama is that Obama failed to get spending under control, which is exactly the same problem Romney had in MA, with 50% higher spending per dollar earned in that state than, say, Texas. Romney had his chance to prove to us he’s the Chris Christie style leader who will raise hell in his state until policies are brought closer to sanity. That simply isn’t who Mitt Romney is. He governed in MA by negotiating with liberals and promising conservatives he only made the state more liberal for their own good, because hey, the hard left wanted even more.
He gave the left Romneycare/Obamacare, and then praised Ted Kennedy for helping him create it, while promising conservatives this massive push left was not as bad as the what the left wanted (And never managed to do before Romney, btw). Romneycare is now bankrupting MA and costing federal dollars. He gave the left strict and severe gun control measures after insisting he doesn’t line up with the NRA, but now the claim is that it would have been worse without him (obviously not the case).
Mitt’s points today sound OK… his recent flip on the flat tax also sounds OK, but the only thing such flip flops show is that the candidate lacks leadership.
Mitt will govern the USA as he governed MA. The results will be the same. That’s better than Obama, but far worse than Perry and worse than Newt as well.
In fact, Jon Hunstman has a more conservative record than Mitt Romney does, and also was a much more successful governor, though I think Hunstman is, like Romney, ridiculously unacceptable.
Romney’s plan here is great, but we need a leader who will propose that plan even when it hurts him in the polls. Romney knows that reforming entitlements will hurt him in the polls just as attempting to privatize social security did to Bush a few years ago.
Anyone who says they are confident Romney will do this after it’s no longer helpful to him is incorrect. (lo and behold that Romney’s flip flop lines up perfectly with his political ambitions for the 500th time).
I’m very pleased with Perry’s performance lately, and Newt has also been great, and I suggest those who find Mitt’s recent conversion encouraging give their vote to the men who led Romney here.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/9/2011 @ 9:45 ambtw, only one of these candidates ever actually created a bankrupting entitlement program, and that’s Romney.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/9/2011 @ 9:46 amCain did not sexually harrass anyone concern trolls.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/9/2011 @ 10:22 amelissa,
Once elected, what incentive would a moderate Republican have to support conservative policies, let alone really fight for them? It seems to me that anyone elected because they are moderate would actually have an incentive to oppose most conservative solutions.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/9/2011 @ 10:24 amCain is not perfect i disagree with him on some points.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/9/2011 @ 10:26 amThe cain supporters are misogynists……………..but you palinbots need to stop playing the gender card
-Meredith
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/9/2011 @ 10:37 amRomney is transparently insincere about many issues, but apparently it works anyway as some look to what he’s saying now, and actually find that a compelling rebuttal to a man’s record. I wonder if these folks would even vote for Obama if he promised reform and changed parties.
Mitt’s made MA more liberal when it was already so far gone to the left any skilled leader would have gone Chris Christie on the state instead of negotiating for some bullet point accomplishments like higher education spending and Romneycare.
So here Mitt is, seeing that he’s vulnerable specifically to a couple of candidates who are sincere in their intention to balance the budget and reform entitlement spending. He knows those issues resonate. The nation is in urgent trouble because so many Republicans in the past have compromised on spending.
So Romney attempts to reduce the distinction between his plans and their plans. He makes a transparently insincere attempt to emulate their views, after demagogueing HARD against PErry’s very sober and fair analysis only weeks ago.
To treat this issue as yet another thing to flip flop on really distills the essence of why the GOP is a failed political party. The party of Lindsey Graham and Arlen Specter, who can be relied on to pursue power for its own sake, instead of clawing their way into power for the sake of anything they actually believe in.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/9/2011 @ 10:47 amMitt Romney:
I believe we can save Social Security with a few commonsense reforms. First, there will be no change for retirees or those near retirement. No change. Second, for the next generation of retirees, we should slowly raise the retirement age. And, finally, for the next generation of retirees, we should slow the growth in benefits for those with higher incomes.
All these predictions about trouble with Social Security are based upon historically low rates of economic growth, plus no change in immigration – that is population. (contrary to the way some people seem to reason, the number of jobs is not independent of the number of people looking for work, but jobs are more or less proportional to the number of people looking for them. That’s true in fact, even if it might not be true in theory.)
If we really have such low rates of economic growth, we’ll have far worse problems, and it highly unlikely that the exact rate of economic growth can be accurately called years and decades in advance – meaning that any change in policy will either not be enough or far too much.
***
Unlike President Obama, our next president must protect Medicare, improve the program, and keep it sustainable for generations to come. Several principles will guide my efforts.
First, Medicare should not change for anyone in the program or soon to be in it. We should honor our commitments to our seniors.
Second, as with Social Security, tax hikes are not the solution. We couldn’t tax our way out of unfunded liabilities so large, even if we wanted to.
Third, tomorrow’s seniors should have the freedom to choose what their health coverage looks like. Younger Americans today, when they turn 65, should have a choice between traditional Medicare and other private healthcare plans that provide at least the same level of benefits. Competition will lower costs and increase the quality of healthcare for tomorrow’s seniors.
Wrong wrong wrong, if he even cares. The problem, as Rush Limbaugh and the Heritage Foundation has pointed out, is not government provided benefits, it’s third-party payments. Only 12% of medical costs are paid for out of pocket.
Now I could write a dozen paragraphs on what might be a good system, but basically you need several things: About 80% of the people who get something have to care what it costs. Things have got to get to the point where people have to be informed even without asking. And at least 25% to 30% of the people – you don’t need more – have to know what is better quality or better care and what is worthless and be free to pick one and avoid the other.
You also want of course people not to be stopped by lack of money or it costing too much of their savings or credit.
The federal government will help seniors pay for the option they choose, with a level of support that ensures all can obtain the coverage they need.
That would either turn out to be true or not true.
Those with lower incomes will receive more generous assistance.
Filing out applications where you pledge to remain poor – that’s the way to go. Not!
Who’s going to audit all these forms?
We have that now. It’s called Medicaid. The forms are too complicated for many people to fill out; are filled out carelessly; don’t reflect economic reality; create perverse economic incentives; don’t count some things; or sometimes count them and expect, at least in theory, people to keep more accurate records than a millionaire with a staff of accountants could do; expect income and assets to be stable when they really change;
are processed with a time lag, and almost always are not completely truthful to some degree.
Beneficiaries can keep the savings from less expensive options, or they can choose to pay more for a costlier plan.
Why would any significant number of people choose a more expensive option, unless it was better?
A system that was working would have a very low standard deviation of costs – a system that wasn’t working would have a high standard deviation.
Finally, as with Social Security, the eligibility age should slowly increase to keep pace with increases in longevity.
This is just an excuse. Right now many people go without coverage for years before age 65.
Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4) — 11/9/2011 @ 10:58 am“Retain[ing] Medicare as an option for future generations”: Can’t be done. Anyone who says it can, be that Mitt Romney or Mickey Mouse, is a liar or a fool.
Moreover, we ought not want that to be an option. It’s a bad system, it was flawed from the outset, and the expectations that it has created are toxic. Why on earth would be perpetuate it even if we could? (But we can’t.)
Beldar (4c94f8) — 11/9/2011 @ 11:07 am“on earth would be perpetuate” –> “on earth would we perpetuate.”
Beldar (4c94f8) — 11/9/2011 @ 11:08 amNothing is ever the democraps fault.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/9/2011 @ 11:08 amBeldar,
I’m afraid half of America won’t accept that fact until it actually happens. I think it’s called learning something the hard way.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/9/2011 @ 11:09 amDRJ’s probably right. It’s just denial. Michael Moore styled ‘there’s plenty of money! Rich people! the 1% is pretending socialism is unaffordable.”
On the other hand, some know. They just want to promise a payout to those who are being robbed blind to fund the current entitlement system. Politicians like Romney weren’t there when Romneycare began to banktupt Massachusetts, and they don’t act like it’s their fault the inevitable occurs. LBJ, Nixon, and FDR are not in a position to take responsibility for their policies either.
So why not just act like these goodies will be there for those who are being forced to pay for something styled as entitlements because, after all, someone feels entitled.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/9/2011 @ 11:19 amI’m with Finkelman, Romamba is a filthy panderer, a lying crud.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/9/2011 @ 11:42 am==Once elected, what incentive would a moderate Republican have to support conservative policies?==
It’s a fair and reasonable concern, DRJ, but my best answer is that that’s why having the house and senate and statehouses filled with as many conservatives as possible is so important. (Framing and prioritizing legislation, setting new policy paths, conducting investigations, approving key appointments to agencies, and fixing past legislative mistakes.)
In the ideal world the president, who supposedly represents the interests of all Americans even those who did not vote for him, is most effective when he is seen as a big picture problem solver, but not too terribly idealogical himself. That’s one of Obama’s biggest current problems in my opinion. People feel he and Axelrod bamboozled them and they are angry about it. Many voters thought he was a new kind of democrat, sort of wonky and thoughtful and moderate. They clearly missed many clues to the contrary but they thought he really believed the “there are no red states or blue states, just the United States” business. They liked hearing those words coming from the mouth of the national leader. But then he immediately broke the spell when he taunted with the words, “I won!” One of the many reasons he now faces the prospect of a one term presidency is that with the Dem congress in place behind him he showed his true colors as a far left ideologue. I don’t think BO would ever have been elected in the first place had people known.
Sooo–I don’t think voters will try to correct that mistake in 2012 by selecting someone they consider (rightly or wrongly) to be a mirror image ideologue from the right. What I think they will do, however is elect someone who seems mature and grounded and smart and knowledgeable and “presidential”. In other words, given the chance this basically center right country will try again this time to elect a moderate to the presidency.
elissa (e6dedc) — 11/9/2011 @ 11:45 amTrue.
And this is why we shouldn’t elect the kind of guy who leaves as his legacy democrats like Deval Patrick or Barack Obama.
Create some distance between the parties. Elect Republicans at all levels who actually mean it when they say it’s time to govern responsibly, and long term, you’ve got a much better shot at that conservative congress sticking around.
Ubermench > A humble record of results.
Incentive for governors to balance budgets = zero.
Not that Elissa’s wrong. She’s probably right.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/9/2011 @ 11:51 amelissa,
I think people elect a President to lead. Obviously America is polarized but electing someone to be a modern Neville Chamberlain isn’t going to fix that. The way to fix things is to elect someone who will make hard decisions that actually work.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/9/2011 @ 12:04 pmToday’s story is the opposite of “hard decisions that actually work”: Obama’s tax on Christmas trees. That was this morning. He delayed it this afternoon: Obama Administration to Delay New 15-Cent Christmas Tree Tax.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/9/2011 @ 12:17 pmThe Obama administration doesn’t lead. It reacts.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/9/2011 @ 12:22 pmComment by DRJ — 11/9/2011 @ 12:04 pm–
No argument about any of that from me. I’m pretty sure no R who is running for president can be considered a modern Neville Chamberlain though. 🙂
Again, Gov. Kasich is a strong leader who made hard decisions and took a stand that actually made sense. If implemented it would have gone far toward fixing the Buckeye state’s precarious finances. I supported him. For all his principled and valiant efforts, the voters yesterday in Ohio overturned what he sought concerning unions– by a landslide. Many voters said they thought he had gone too far, too fast. The unions in several other Midwestern states are now emboldened. I’m glad the Gov. tried to do the right thing but if the troops aren’t poised to be led, well—–
elissa (e6dedc) — 11/9/2011 @ 12:32 pmGood for Kasich.
If it’s tilting at windmills to fight the necessary fight, then I’ll vote for Don Q.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/9/2011 @ 12:35 pm“PErry’s very sober and fair analysis only weeks ago.”
Must have been after that YouTube bender…
ColonelHaiku (09a0f9) — 11/9/2011 @ 1:07 pm“That would either turn out to be true or not true.”
Sammy – I agree 100%
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/9/2011 @ 1:08 pmThe continuing internal team R bickering is destructive and I for one find it very disheartening.
Well said, elissa. These folks who so stridently deride other candidates will be left holding their puds come the convention.
ColonelHaiku (09a0f9) — 11/9/2011 @ 1:10 pmre:43… funny stuff, daley! Sammy may end up being 360 degrees incorrect!
ColonelHaiku (09a0f9) — 11/9/2011 @ 1:11 pmAnd
Make me laugh.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/9/2011 @ 1:11 pmYou’d best get back to slamming Romney’s character, Dusty Springperry, and leave the funny stuff to the comedians.
ColonelHaiku (09a0f9) — 11/9/2011 @ 1:15 pmThe Sonuva Preacherman’s got Dusty’s vote – and heart – locked up.
ColonelHaiku (09a0f9) — 11/9/2011 @ 1:16 pmRonald Reagan would have disagreed, as evidences by his passionate criticism of his primary opponents.
We need this debate very badly for reasons like this. Not having it benefits the politicians who just want power and don’t offer much in return.
Elissa is right, of course, that the bickering is terrible and divisive. Bickering is to argue about trivial or petty matters, such as editing videos to make a smart guy look drunk.
Of course, it isn’t possible to bicker about Romneycare bankrupting MA. That’s not trivial.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/9/2011 @ 1:16 pmI don’t need to worry too much about it. 70% of Republicans polls say they cannot support Mitt Romney. We all know that his flip flops are shameless and dishonest. We all know that Romney lacks personal character.
So, I disagree. I don’t think I really need to point out Romney’s lack of character.
I would rather focus on the general issue of entitlement reform, which is a very serious issue, and one I think is shameful to use a political football, especially on both sides.
Romney happens to be the loser who did this in this case, but it’s not really about Romney. If he’s the nominee, it’s because the right failed to unify around any challengers. It’s not Romney’s fault, then. Just a symptom of the greater disease.
You really have taken our disagreements way too personally, Haiku, so I appreciate that you’re at least willing to pretend to be a comedian now. That’s better than telling me to die, or hoping I burn in hell.
Thank you, sincerely, for trying to elevate yourself.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/9/2011 @ 1:24 pmAbortion is not in the constitution is it?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/9/2011 @ 1:32 pmYes, it is. Roe V Wade proved that abortion is a right found in the penumbras of many amendments.
Mitt Romney has repeatedly explained this as “good law”, and this is no exaggeration. This is why Romney appointed a lot of liberal democrats to the bench. Which is a promise kept. He promised to never waver in supporting Roe V Wade, which says Abortion is a right found in the US Constitution.
I do not see how it is possible to bicker about something that is serious.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/9/2011 @ 1:36 pmThe Obama administration doesn’t lead. It reacts.
Comment by DRJ — 11/9/2011 @ 12:22 pm
Think about it, that’s what “leading from behind” is all about – it is being “reactionary”, not “revolutionary”.
If BHO was the “driver”, he’d be seated at one of those rear-mounted steering wheels seen on hook-and-ladder fire-trucks.
AD-RtR/OS! (b10a8d) — 11/9/2011 @ 1:52 pmYes, AD, sometimes it looks like Obama is not in control. I doubt he directed Fast and Furious or finding Osama. People are acting in the vacuum of a real leader, both for better and for worse.
We need someone who leads. Someone who could play out the rest of his political career without hearing about a single poll.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/9/2011 @ 1:57 pmGood one dustin.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/9/2011 @ 3:11 pm== Someone who could play out the rest of his political career without hearing about a single poll==
Did you feel that same way when Obama refused to listen to the polls while he and Nancy were ramming Obamacare through?
elissa (57611d) — 11/9/2011 @ 3:30 pmSo let me turn the Kasich example around …
… if Liberals gave up after every failure legislatively we’d have no Medicare, no SS, no Obamacare, no EPA …
.. point is you don’t give up. You keep jamming in down their throat till they come to expect it and convinced they like it.
ODB (0f13a8) — 11/9/2011 @ 3:40 pmerm.
No.
You got me there.
I guess there’s some distinction I could draw, but to be perfectly honest, I want a conservative who is as stubborn as the democrats were about Obamacare because Obamacare actually happened. It was tough, and they got it done. It happens to be terrible, but entitlement reform would face at least as much flack, IMO. Riots, probably.
I want a real leader who does not need to read a poll to see which way to flip flop today. That is a necessary, but as Elissa has shown, insufficient feature. I also need the leader to follow his principles in a good direction.
The times our nation find herself in demands a lot from leaders who hope to seize the day.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/9/2011 @ 3:44 pmDustin, you take yourself way too seriously. Let me make it clear to you… your favorite is not going to be the nominee. I did note how you disappeared when people were making it known they believed the treatment of Herman Cain was below the belt, no pun intended. You simply did not care about the character assassination, apparently because you believed it benefited Rick Perry. You chose to amscray, without taking a position. Very wormy of you, but I don’t want to be too judgmental… so I will leave it at that.
ColonelHaiku (09a0f9) — 11/9/2011 @ 3:50 pmThe times our nation find herself in demands a lot from leaders who hope to seize the day.
But… look what we done in Texas.
ColonelHaiku (09a0f9) — 11/9/2011 @ 4:32 pmThere will a debate on CBS tonight.
On Friday October 28, 2011, the New York Times published a schdule of the upcoming republican Presidential debtaes. There had been one I think on September 22 and one on octoiber 11 and one on October 18.
Now there was a pause. We had the Cain-Gingrich debate last Saturday November 5.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/us/schedule-of-upcoming-republican-debates.html?scp=5&sq=debate%20schedule&st=cse
I’ve slightly edited the text.
Nov 9 — 8 p.m., CNBC debate in Rochester, Mich.
[That starts in about 22 minutes – wednesday November 9]
Nov 12 — 8 p.m., CBS News debate on foreign policy at Wofford College in Spartanburg, S.C.
Nov 15 — 8 p.m., CNN debate sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute in Washington
Nov 30 — 8 p.m., CNN debate in Arizona *
December
Dec 10 — 8 p.m., ABC News debate in Iowa
Dec 15 — 8 p.m., Fox News debate in Sioux City, Iowa
Dec 19 — 8 p.m., PBS/Des Moines Register debate in Johnston, Iowa
January
Jan 7 — 9 p.m., ABC News debate in New Hampshire
Jan 8 — 9:30 a.m., “Meet the Press” debate on NBC
(or whatever Sunday is before the New Hampshire primary but it’s now definite)
Jan 16 — 8 p.m., Fox News debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
Jan 19 — 8 p.m., CNN debate in Charleston, S.C.
Jan 23 — 8 p.m., NBC News debate in Tampa, Fla.
Jan 26 — 8 p.m., CNN debate in Jacksonville, Fla.
* Tentative date
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/9/2011 @ 4:42 pmCorrection to 61:
There will a debate on CBS tonight.
Nov 9 — 8 p.m., CNBC debate in Rochester, Mich.
The debate is on CNBC, like the list of debates
says..
There was too much applause right at the beginning, but that got better. There was the obligatory Cain scandal question, which the audience booed (justifiably – it asked would or should a CEO with this problem be fired or not hired) Romney was the only other person who got questioned on it. He acted scared of it. (The correct answer is really no – a CEO of an acquired company in a situation like this should not be fired – this is not a contemporary issue)
The exchange on health care where they were asked to tell us in 30 seconds how you would replace Obamacare was good. They actually managed to do this pretty well
Various individual ideas were mentioned. They all seemed to agree on getting things back to the patient.
Cain mentioned what in the last Congress was called HR3400 and in this Congress is HR 3000 saying the legislation has already been written. Gingrich, in spite of his general objections and saying it is an impossible question and saying that’s why he wanted Lincoln Douglas debates with a time keeper but no moderator. Then he said he’d been working on this since 1974 and in 2002 he published a book called Saving Money and Saving Lives. and he threw in some other ideas.
Gingrich said a nice little thing on Social Security how it was put into the budget. His earlier answer about auditing the Fed wasn’t so good. What’s the point?
The quality of the debate is getting better.
Now a student loan question.
Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4) — 11/9/2011 @ 6:27 pm