Is RomneyCare a Liberal's Wet Dream?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Whatever Became of RomneyCare?
by Michael D. Tanner


This article appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune on January 29, 2008.

As he campaigns across the country this week in anticipation of the Super Tuesday primaries, Mitt Romney probably won't say much about the storied health-care plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts.

For one thing, it is hard to portray yourself as the ideological heir to Ronald Reagan when your health-care plan is virtually indistinguishable from the one proposed by Hillary Clinton. But another reason Romney may not want to talk about his plan is that it has been a dismal failure.

The Massachusetts plan was supposed to achieve universal health coverage while controlling costs. As Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced." Or not.

The Massachusetts plan might not have achieved universal coverage, but it has cost taxpayers a great deal of money.
Before RomneyCare was enacted, the number of uninsured Massachusetts residents was estimated at 618,000. Under the new program, about 300,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance. But of these, 169,000 are receiving subsidized coverage, proving once again that people are all too happy to accept something someone else is paying for. Another 70,000 people have also been enrolled in Medicaid, meaning a total of 239,000 people are receiving taxpayer-funded health insurance. Of those who have signed up for insurance since the plan was implemented, slightly more than half have received totally "free" coverage. Only 60,000 unsubsidized residents have bought insurance in order to comply with the mandate.

And though the subsidies have increased the number of Massachusetts citizens with insurance, as many as 300,000 Massachusetts residents have failed to buy the required insurance. Thus, half of those who were uninsured before the plan was implemented remain so.

The Massachusetts plan might not have achieved universal coverage, but it has cost taxpayers a great deal of money. It was originally projected to cost $1.8 billion in 2008, but it is now expected to exceed those estimates by $150 million to $400 million. Over the next decade, projections suggest that RomneyCare will cost $2-$4 billion more than was budgeted. Given that Massachusetts is already facing a projected budget deficit this year, the pressure to raise taxes, cut reimbursements to health-care providers, or cap insurance premiums will likely be intense.

The cost of the Massachusetts plan is also likely to continue rising, because it has failed to hold down the cost of health care. When Gov. Romney signed the bill, he claimed "a key objective is to lower the cost of health insurance for all our citizens and allow our citizens to buy the insurance plan that fits their needs." In actuality, insurance premiums in the state are expected to rise 10-12 percent this year - twice the national average.

A major cause is that the new bureaucracy the legislation created - the "Connector" - is not allowing Massachusetts citizens to buy insurance that "fits their needs." For example, the Connector's governing board decrees that by January 2009, no one will be allowed to have insurance with a deductible higher than $2,000 or total out-of-pocket costs of more than $5,000.

In addition, every policy will be required to provide prescription drug coverage, a move that could add 5-15 percent to the cost of insurance plans. A proposal to require dental coverage failed narrowly, but the dentists - and several other provider groups - have not given up the effort to force its inclusion. This comes on top of the 40 mandated benefits the state had previously required, ranging from in vitro fertilization to chiropractic services.

Romney now says that he cannot be held responsible for the actions of the Connector board, because it's "an independent body separate from the governor's office." But many critics of the Massachusetts plan warned him precisely against the dangers of giving regulatory authority to a bureaucracy that would last long beyond his adminis- tration.

Executives often blame others for the failures of their own policies, but that's not a tendency one looks for in a candidate. Romney claims he is a "true conservative" with the business expertise to "get things done." Judging by his experience with health-care reform, far from it.

[jeremy885]

aren't the dems wanting to copy MA's program for their national health care plans?

[Jerk]

dude.....

jeremy!

lol

I'm just going to keep my mouth shut.

[SCOUT]

SJS is starting to remind me of CShine. Post an article and bolt.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

SJS is starting to remind me of CShine. Post an article and bolt.


I'm still here. Didn't bolt.

I find it a bit amusing that John McCain is viewed by some as the great Satan and Mitt Romney is hailed as if he were the offspring of Barry Goldwater and Margaret Thatcher.

But of course, with the ann coulter mcCain-bashing article posted in another thread, I thought I'd offer some "fair and balanced" coverage.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'm still here. Didn't bolt.So who are you votin for?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

So who are you votin for?

Looks like my choices will be McCain and Clinton. I think both would be good presidents, so it's a win-win for me.

McCain is clearly a free market guy. Clinton is a DLC democrat who occasionally throws a bone to the union-John Edwards crowd, but I don't think she'll turn protectionist. She'll just try using the bully pulpit against "unfair" trading practices and human rights issues. But if she starts bashing our trading partners too much, she won't get my vote.

If elected, I hope clinton appoints someone to treasury that Wall Street likes. bill clinton appointed Robert Rubin and wall street loved the guy.

I believe she will suspend the Mexico City Rule which forbids any U.S. foreign aid $$$ going to family planning services in third world countries who make abortion referrals. Bill suspended it and dubya reinstituted it to appease the religious right. Not sure about McCain.

As of today, I am not voting based on the war issue. I honestly don't know the correct policy. Obviously I am not privvy to classified info and other important information one needs to make strategic war decisions.

I'm a bit of a contrarian voter. Presidents labeled liberals tend to accomplish some conservative goals, and those labeled conservative tend to accomplish some liberal goals. Many examples of that in the last few decades.

I think a donk president and a pub congress is a good combination. I suspect a pub congress is likely in 2010 if clinton is elected. If mcCain is elected, I suspect a donk congress will remain.


[in the primary I voted for Clinton. Obama and Edwards are just too liberal for my taste.]

[Turd_Ferguson]

If mcCain is elected, I suspect a donk congress will remain.Wouldn't that make it a Ba-Donk-a-Donk presidency?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Wouldn't that make it a Ba-Donk-a-Donk presidency?


1. On Iraq - mcCain is not a donk.

2. On free trade/free markets, McCain is not a donk.

3. He is a deficit hawk more than modern day pubs. pubs used to be for balanced budgets. that is a main reason he voted against the tax cuts. spending cuts were not done at the same time. we've learned you can't act on the promise of later spending cuts.

4. He's anti-abortion rights, that's not like a donk.

5. He doesn't kiss the a$$es of Jerry Falwell's entourage, so I give you that - he's more like a donk there.

6. He's more pro-2nd amendment than most all donks.

7. he served in viet nam - more like a donk, I give you that.

[Jerk]

There is a debate from 1994 on youtube between Romney and Ted Kennedy and Romney literally tries to out-liberal him.

Romney the super lib!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI&feature=related

Rush Limbaugh needs to get over his personal vendetta against McCain.

[Flagstaffsooner]

There is a debate from 1994 on youtube between Romney and Ted Kennedy and Romney literally tries to out-liberal him.
Well, when running for Senator in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Massacusetts.....

Rush Limbaugh needs to get over his personal vendetta against McCain.
__________________
He needs to get over alot of things.

[soonerhubs]

I say cut the damn taxes anyways. Why should I care whether or not the government is in more debt as long as I'm not?


Looks like my choices will be McCain and Clinton. I think both would be good presidents, so it's a win-win for me.

This right here says more about why you're posting all the anti-Romney articles than anything else.

Do we as a people not like having money in our pockets anymore? Since when should we trust big government so much that we should keep putting more money in their coffer?

If anyone's read Tom Coburn's book regarding government spending, he or she would probably hardily endorse taking some money back from these people who are COMPLETELY unworthy of our trust.

For those of you who LOVE bureaucracy, the good news is that the government would actually grow in years to come because of all the tax revenue being made. You just have to think LONG TERM, and not TAX AND SPEND NOW. (Personally it sounds like tax cuts would make all people happy.)

It blows my mind how many of us would support programs and structures that would cause more outsourcing of jobs to other countries. I for one am tired of talking to my friends in Delhi and Bangalore about why my flight is delayed in Denver.

Regarding the Youtube article: Romney has "matured" since that debate. That's what the media calls it when McCain changes his mind. FWIW McCain went from an Episcopalian to an "unofficial" member of the Baptist church.

'McCain has for years attended North Phoenix Baptist Church in Arizona. The church has about 6,000 members and is part of the theologically conservative Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest evangelical denomination.

Cindy McCain and two of their children have been baptized in the church. McCain hasn't: "I didn't find it necessary to do so for my spiritual needs," he said.

McCain still calls himself an Episcopalian, but he said he began attending North Phoenix Baptist because he found "the message and fundamental nature more fulfilling than I did in the Episcopal church. ... They're great believers in redemption, and so am I."' (Stearns, 2007, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/16589.html)

I'd rather have someone a little less of a waffler on his own Spiritual convictions. Just saying...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

There is a debate from 1994 on youtube between Romney and Ted Kennedy and Romney literally tries to out-liberal him.

Romney the super lib!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI&feature=related

Rush Limbaugh needs to get over his personal vendetta against McCain.PAY ATTENTION! Clearly, Romney lost in '94 to Kennedy because he tried to campaign as a liberal, and you can't out-democrat the real thing.. Later, when he won as Governor, he was much more conservative, and has increasingly become more conservative.

McCain, however, has gone the opposite direction, and year by year has become more the crazy socialist. He absolutely doesn't understand economics, and is almost as unacceptable for POTUS as any of the democrats. I will abstain from voting if he's the nominee.

[Big Red Ron]

PAY ATTENTION! Clearly, Romney lost in '94 to Kennedy because he tried to campaign as a liberal, and you can't out-democrat the real thing.. Later, when he won as Governor, he was much more conservative, and has increasingly become more conservative.

.PAY CLOSE ATTENTION, that means Romney is an ideological whore. NOT, I repeat, NOT a conservative in any way.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION, that means Romney is an ideological whore. NOT, I repeat, NOT a conservative in any way.Romney has taken conservative position on virtually all the issues in the debates and interviews. McCain DOES NOT...YOU PAY ATTENTION!

[Big Red Ron]

Romney has taken conservative position on virtually all the issues in the debates and interviews. McCain DOES NOT...YOU PAY ATTENTION!Man, you lost this. Take a deep breath, turn off you little radio and help beat Billary, or go take a nap. With Republicans like you, we don't need Democrats.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Man, you lost this. Take a deep breath, turn off you little radio and help beat Billary, or go take a nap. With Republicans like you, we don't need Democrats.With republicans like you, we HAVE democrats.

[Big Red Ron]

With republicans like you, we HAVE democrats.You're proving my point again. Your reasoning and logical skills are lacking and it's showing. Run a truth table on my statement then your and you see what I'm talking about.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You're proving my point again. Your reasoning and logical skills are lacking and it's showing. Run a truth table on my statement then your and you see what I'm talking about.I really am sorry you don't like it. You seem like a good guy, but there were 3 people in this race on the republican side that I am against taking a chance on, and he is one of them.(Ron Paul, McCain and Huckabee)

[Big Red Ron]

I really am sorry you don't like it. You seem like a good guy, but there were 3 people in this race on the republican side that I am against taking a chance on, and he is one of them.(Ron Paul, McCain and Huckabee)You realize that the real conservatives in our party quietly support Paul. If he wasn't such a foreign policy wus, Rush Limbaugh himself would support him.

The whole let Hillary win if we can't get our liberal from Mass. elected is pure bull**** and young people like you that eat it up, I feel sorry for. Rush and Coulter appeal to the least common denominator of our Party, not the conservative intellectuals.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You realize that the real conservatives in our party quietly support Paul. If he wasn't such a foreign policy wus, Rush Limbaugh himself would support him.

The whole let Hillary win if we can't get our liberal from Mass. elected is pure bull**** and young people like you that eat it up, I feel sorry for. Rush and Coulter appeal to the least common denominator of our Party, not the conservative intellectuals.On the first statement, you are correct. "Get the troops out now", is a complete stopper for consideration as president. BTW, Duncan hunter was the best candidate, but he lacked the fire to compete. How old do you think I am?(I've said on here several times)

[Big Red Ron]

On the first statement, you are correct. "Get the troops out now", is a complete stopper for consideration as president. BTW, Duncan hunter was the best candidate, but he lacked the fire to compete. How old do you think I am?(I've said on here several times)You seem like a young person but you may just be getting senile. ;) Especially if you think there is any rational reason to let Hillary become president.

Think about it, all the conservative BS that your so worried about (which is a miniscule part of McCain's record) is like the desert. If our country or Israel get's a nuclear attack NONE OF THAT STUFF will matter.

I'm more worried with keeping a USA at all, than the subtle nuances of political philosophies as they relate to campaign financing or illegal immigration RIGHT NOW.

[OklahomaTuba]

All i know is, I trust Mac a helluva lot more than I trust Romney.

At least I know Mac is pro-growth hawk who won't be trying surrender to AQ the first chance he gets.

And voting for Billary or Hussein over him as a conservative would be just stupid.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You seem like a young person but you may just be getting senile. ;) Especially if you think there is any rational reason to let Hillary become president.

Think about it, all the conservative BS that your so worried about (which is a miniscule part of McCain's record) is like the desert. If our country or Israel get's a nuclear attack NONE OF THAT STUFF will matter.

I'm more worried with keeping a USA at all, than the subtle nuances of political philosophies as they relate to campaign financing or illegal immigration RIGHT NOW.All the candidates, except maybe Ron Paul and Obama, are quite concerned about the nuclear threat. The republican party is in severe turmoil, as evidenced by the fact that McCain could be the nominee.Sorry. Go and vote for him if you haven't already. There's a little story from days gone by called the "Keating 5", and you will be hearing about it ad nauseum, if McCain's the nominee.

[Big Red Ron]

All the candidates, except maybe Ron Paul and Obama, are quite concerned about the nuclear threat. The republican party is in severe turmoil, as evidenced by the fact that McCain could be the nominee.Sorry. Go and vote for him if you haven't already. There's a little story from days gone by called the "Keating 5", and you will be hearing about it ad nauseum, if McCain's the nominee.He was slpped on the wrist of the keating deal and it was decades ago.

Just like Bush didn't tun out to be a conservative, McCain will not be the liberal you think he is.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

All i know is, I trust Mac a helluva lot more than I trust Romney.

At least I know Mac is pro-growth hawk who won't be trying surrender to AQ the first chance he gets.

And voting for Billary or Hussein over him as a conservative would be just stupid.I just don't trust McCain at all, and I really don't think he would appoint conservative judges. He's basically a liberal, any more.

[soonerhubs]

Just like Bush didn't tun out to be a conservative, McCain will not be the liberal you think he is.
If he becomes POTUS, I can only pray that you are correct on this statement my friend.

[Harry Beanbag]

If you guys are truly worried about liberals then you'll do everything you can to make sure Obama and Hillary don't get elected.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

McCain, however, has gone the opposite direction, and year by year has become more the crazy socialist. He absolutely doesn't understand economics,

Well let's compare McCain votes to Fred Thompson:

Both voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam.

Both voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore.

Both voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile.

Both voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations.

Both voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority.

John McCain had a 100% pro-free trade rating by CATO.

John McCain is a free-market conservative.


Compare to liberal John Edwards:

He had a 17% pro-free trade rating by CATO.

And your boy Duncan Hunter is similar to liberal John Edwards. He scored only a 24% pro-free trade rating by CATO. Hunter is a cultural conservative but not a free-market conservative. Wall Street would HATE Duncan Hunter.


Your boy Duncan Hunter would have made a great politburo bureaucrat in the old Soviet Union. The communists tried to control the flow of capital, instead of letting free markets determine its flow. God Bless free market capitalism.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

What CATO says about McCain....

While Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity sometimes portray McCain as a virtual clone of Ted Kennedy, the fact is that he is a true fiscal conservative—certainly more of a fiscal conservative than, say, Mitt Romney. He is well known as an opponent of earmarks and pork barrel spending. But perhaps more importantly, he has long been an advocate of entitlement reform. He was early an ardent support of personal accounts for Social Security, and has pushed for serious Medicare reform, including means-testing. Almost alone among Republicans, he opposed the disastrous Medicare prescription drug benefit.

He has offered the best health care reform plan of any of the candidates. While Mitt Romney has embraced the basic tenants of HillaryCare, McCain would change the tax code to equalize the treatment between employer-provided and individually-purchased health insurance. This is a vital step in moving away from our employment-based health care system toward a more consumer-oriented system. And, he would allow the purchase of low-cost insurance across state lines, avoiding regulation and mandates.

During his time in the Senate, he has never voted for a tax increase. While he has taken much heat for voting against the Bush tax cuts, he now calls for making those tax cuts permanent (although he would retain a vestige of the estate tax at a reduced rate and increased exemption). And, McCain is right that cutting taxes has too often become an excuse for republicans to avoid the hard task of cutting spending. Cutting taxes reduces the pain of government spending (at least for now), allowing Congress to avoid difficult choices. While taxes need to be cut—and McCain supports a number of tax cuts including reductions in the business tax rates and capital gains taxes—future tax cuts should be linked with spending cuts. As I argue in my book, Leviathan on the Right, it’s the size of government, stupid.

He is a strong and unapologetic free trader.

[SoonerBorn68]

Hey blog boy, it's easy to copy/paste. Are you sure you're not Vaevictus' brother--****** of everything?

[SoonerBorn68]

I guessed Vaevictus as being a 25 year old career student who never had a real job. I'm guessing you're about 23 & never had a real job.

[Big Red Ron]

I guessed Vaevictus as being a 25 year old career student who never had a real job. I'm guessing you're about 23 & never had a real job.And you seem much more seasoned and edified.:rolleyes:

[JohnnyMack]

I guessed Vaevictus as being a 25 year old career student who never had a real job. I'm guessing you're about 23 & never had a real job.

He's like a brazillionaire. Just ask him.

[Howzit]

I guessed Vaevictus as being a 25 year old career student who never had a real job. I'm guessing you're about 23 & never had a real job.

:les: GUESS ME NEXT!!!

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I guessed Vaevictus as being a 25 year old career student who never had a real job. I'm guessing you're about 23 & never had a real job.

Now SoonerBorn68, why would free trade be such an important issue to me if I were only 23 and never had a real job? Isn't more likely I would be one of the kids enamored by Obama?

[SoonerBorn68]

:les: GUESS ME NEXT!!!


grey haired elf who runs and causes trouble.

What do I win?

[SoonerBorn68]

And you seem much more seasoned and edified.:rolleyes:

Never claimed to be, but I can put together my own thoughts without having to copy paste somebody else's.

[SoonerBorn68]

He's like a brazillionaire. Just ask him.

It's TRA-zillionaire. Get it right. :D

[SoonerBorn68]

Now SoonerBorn68, why would free trade be such an important issue to me if I were only 23 and never had a real job? Isn't more likely I would be one of the kids enamored by Obama?

Um because maybe you've cornered the copy/paste from blogs market?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

OK SoonerBorn68, these were my responses that were not cut and paste for CATO institute, but my own construction.

You got something besides an ad hominem? That's OK every now and then, but how about attacking the argument rather than the arguer?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Turd_Ferguson
So who are you votin for?

Looks like my choices will be McCain and Clinton. I think both would be good presidents, so it's a win-win for me.

McCain is clearly a free market guy. Clinton is a DLC democrat who occasionally throws a bone to the union-John Edwards crowd, but I don't think she'll turn protectionist. She'll just try using the bully pulpit against "unfair" trading practices and human rights issues. But if she starts bashing our trading partners too much, she won't get my vote.

If elected, I hope clinton appoints someone to treasury that Wall Street likes. bill clinton appointed Robert Rubin and wall street loved the guy.

I believe she will suspend the Mexico City Rule which forbids any U.S. foreign aid $$$ going to family planning services in third world countries who make abortion referrals. Bill suspended it and dubya reinstituted it to appease the religious right. Not sure about McCain.

As of today, I am not voting based on the war issue. I honestly don't know the correct policy. Obviously I am not privvy to classified info and other important information one needs to make strategic war decisions.

I'm a bit of a contrarian voter. Presidents labeled liberals tend to accomplish some conservative goals, and those labeled conservative tend to accomplish some liberal goals. Many examples of that in the last few decades.

I think a donk president and a pub congress is a good combination. I suspect a pub congress is likely in 2010 if clinton is elected. If mcCain is elected, I suspect a donk congress will remain.


[in the primary I voted for Clinton. Obama and Edwards are just too liberal for my taste.]





Quote:
Originally Posted by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
McCain, however, has gone the opposite direction, and year by year has become more the crazy socialist. He absolutely doesn't understand economics,

Well let's compare McCain votes to Fred Thompson:

Both voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam.

Both voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore.

Both voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile.

Both voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations.

Both voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority.

John McCain had a 100% pro-free trade rating by CATO.

John McCain is a free-market conservative.


Compare to liberal John Edwards:

He had a 17% pro-free trade rating by CATO.

And your boy Duncan Hunter is similar to liberal John Edwards. He scored only a 24% pro-free trade rating by CATO. Hunter is a cultural conservative but not a free-market conservative. Wall Street would HATE Duncan Hunter.


Your boy Duncan Hunter would have made a great politburo bureaucrat in the old Soviet Union. The communists tried to control the flow of capital, instead of letting free markets determine its flow. God Bless free market capitalism.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

OK SoonerBorn68, these below were my responses that were not cut and paste from the CATO institute website , but my own construction.

You got something besides an ad hominem? That's OK every now and then, but how about attacking the argument rather than the arguer?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Turd_Ferguson
So who are you votin for?

Looks like my choices will be McCain and Clinton. I think both would be good presidents, so it's a win-win for me.

McCain is clearly a free market guy. Clinton is a DLC democrat who occasionally throws a bone to the union-John Edwards crowd, but I don't think she'll turn protectionist. She'll just try using the bully pulpit against "unfair" trading practices and human rights issues. But if she starts bashing our trading partners too much, she won't get my vote.

If elected, I hope clinton appoints someone to treasury that Wall Street likes. bill clinton appointed Robert Rubin and wall street loved the guy.

I believe she will suspend the Mexico City Rule which forbids any U.S. foreign aid $$$ going to family planning services in third world countries who make abortion referrals. Bill suspended it and dubya reinstituted it to appease the religious right. Not sure about McCain.

As of today, I am not voting based on the war issue. I honestly don't know the correct policy. Obviously I am not privvy to classified info and other important information one needs to make strategic war decisions.

I'm a bit of a contrarian voter. Presidents labeled liberals tend to accomplish some conservative goals, and those labeled conservative tend to accomplish some liberal goals. Many examples of that in the last few decades.

I think a donk president and a pub congress is a good combination. I suspect a pub congress is likely in 2010 if clinton is elected. If mcCain is elected, I suspect a donk congress will remain.


[in the primary I voted for Clinton. Obama and Edwards are just too liberal for my taste.]





Quote:
Originally Posted by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
McCain, however, has gone the opposite direction, and year by year has become more the crazy socialist. He absolutely doesn't understand economics,

Well let's compare McCain votes to Fred Thompson:

Both voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam.

Both voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore.

Both voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile.

Both voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations.

Both voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority.

John McCain had a 100% pro-free trade rating by CATO.

John McCain is a free-market conservative.


Compare to liberal John Edwards:

He had a 17% pro-free trade rating by CATO.

And your boy Duncan Hunter is similar to liberal John Edwards. He scored only a 24% pro-free trade rating by CATO. Hunter is a cultural conservative but not a free-market conservative. Wall Street would HATE Duncan Hunter.


Your boy Duncan Hunter would have made a great politburo bureaucrat in the old Soviet Union. The communists tried to control the flow of capital, instead of letting free markets determine its flow. God Bless free market capitalism.

[SoonerBorn68]

Wow, I got him mad enough to double post--now, if I could get a meltdown today...

[SoonerBorn68]

In a nutshell, to me McCain is a hot head who can't be trusted with the button. He might be the second coming of conservatism, or progressivism, or even liberalism, but, he's an insider whose temper is not to be trusted.

[Big Red Ron]

In a nutshell, to me McCain is a hot head who can't be trusted with the button. He might be the second coming of conservatism, or progressivism, or even liberalism, but, he's an insider whose temper is not to be trusted.And Hillary's well known PMS tantrums are to be trusted with the button?

:rolleyes:

[SoonerBorn68]

Dude, apparently you gots no clue about my political values. A vote for Hillary or Obama is instant fiscal suicide for this country. "Change" is what everyone will be begging for on street corners if they are elected.

[SoonerBorn68]

Somebody do some name calling so this thread will get closed or deleted.

I vote for deleted.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

A vote for Hillary or Obama is instant fiscal suicide for this country.


Actually, democrats seem to do better with reducing the deficits. THey'd probably try to raise rates on those making 250,000 and up and negotiate on rates on capital gains.

Clinton or Obama or any president just can't to anything all that radical - there would be a filibuster in the senate, the yellow dogs in her own party would turn against her and she'd be a impotent as a Jimmy Carter.

So SoonerBorn(69-1), is Romney your first choice, or was it someone else?





http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/images/contractImages/clinton.jpg

[Jerk]

PAY ATTENTION! Clearly, Romney lost in '94 to Kennedy because he tried to campaign as a liberal, and you can't out-democrat the real thing.. Later, when he won as Governor, he was much more conservative, and has increasingly become more conservative.

McCain, however, has gone the opposite direction, and year by year has become more the crazy socialist. He absolutely doesn't understand economics, and is almost as unacceptable for POTUS as any of the democrats. I will abstain from voting if he's the nominee.
I have payed attention and it is real clear that Limbaugh has let his personal feelings get the best of him.

Romney is the Rino of Rinos, and all you have to do is look at his record. McCain votes 80% conservative and If we have to let 50,000,000 mexicans into this country to get a guy who isn't a gawdamned communist then I say open the burrito stands. In other words, we're not getting Reagan this time but we probably can get someone who is more conservative than Bush but there will be concesssions...like, 50,000,000 mexicans. Would you rather have socialism AND 50,000,000 mexicans? Or socialism and no 50,000,000 mexicans? I say we take 50,000,000 mexicans and no fu**ing socialism, that's what I say.

Everyone here knows what my favorite political issue is and McCain has an awesome record on the issue. Romney...eh, not so much.

oh, and ETA- do you really want to fill the Supreme Court with a bunch of Ruth Bater Ginsburgs?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I have payed attention and it is real clear that Limbaugh has let his personal feelings get the best of him.

Romney is the Rino of Rinos, and all you have to do is look at his record. McCain votes 80% conservative and If we have to let 50,000,000 mexicans into this country to get a guy who isn't a gawdamned communist then I say open the burrito stands. In other words, we're not getting Reagan this time but we probably can get someone who is more conservative than Bush but there will be concesssions...like, 50,000,000 mexicans. Would you rather have socialism AND 50,000,000 mexicans? Or socialism and no 50,000,000 mexicans? I say we take 50,000,000 mexicans and no fu**ing socialism, that's what I say.

Everyone here knows what my favorite political issue is and McCain has an awesome record on the issue. Romney...eh, not so much.

oh, and ETA- do you really want to fill the Supreme Court with a bunch of Ruth Bater Ginsburgs?2 things in particular to remember forthcoming until the general election is history, from our friends in the MSM, if McCain is the nominee: CIA tapes, and the Keating 5.

[JohnnyMack]

2 things in particular to remember forthcoming until the general election is history, from our friends in the MSM, if McCain is the nominee: CIA tapes, and the Keating 5.

:rolleyes:

No way either one of those things are significant enough to make a dent.

[Jerk]

2 things in particular to remember forthcoming until the general election is history, from our friends in the MSM, if McCain is the nominee: CIA tapes, and the Keating 5.
I don't care about the msm.

Look at Romney's record... not what he says...look at the things he's actually signed into law.

A typical Oklahoma Democrat is more conservative than he is. SRSLY. Brad Henry is way further to the right.

Dude...McCain is not perfect and I have hated on the guy many times, especially over the immigration issue. But if you look at his record he is actually quiet conservative.

To say you would abstain and let Hillary or obama win is crazy. You can kiss the USSC goodbye. I don't know if McCain would nominate an Alito type, but I doubt he'd fill it full of card-carrying ACLU types who believe in the "living constitution."

[Jerk]

This is from someone else on another board but I can't say it any better myself:


Ya know, I understand that people have a lot of issues with McCain. Justified issues. The whole business with the Keating Five, his stance on immigration, the awful, unconstitutional McCain-Feingold.
But I have an even bigger problem with Romney, as the man has gone from being anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage to pro-gun, pro-life and anti-homosexual marriage in the space of a couple years. Hell, I don't think Paul had that big of a conversion on the road to Damascus, and he got knocked off his *** by God, or so the story goes.
The one thing I do like about McCain is that he's his own man and he says what he believes, whether or not I agree with it. I think he's a bit obsessed about being his own man, about being a maverick. There's a guy at my gym who was an airedale on the carrier McCain served on during Vietnam---he knew the guy personally. He says that even then, McCain was a rebel, a maverick---in his words, he was like the guy from Top Gun, always pushing the envelope and seeing what he could get away with.
Maybe that's why he's always such a pain in the *** to the Republican Party.
I am not very excited about the prospect of a McCain presidency, but neither do I share the view that some conservative pundits have that it would be a disaster. Like all presidencies, some good would happen and some bad. I think less bad and more good would happen than with a Hillary or Obama presidency, IMHO. Others may disagree, but I think that, at the very least, McCain would be strong on the military and the WOT, and would be lukewarm wrt gun control.
I can live with that for four years when the alternative is Hillary or Obama.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This is from someone else on another board but I can't say it any better myself:Sorry, Jerk, McCain has proven to be a hotheaded, dishonest bully, and doesn't even apologize for McCain -Feingold, the most egregious assault on the First Amendment we've ever put into law, even though it violates the constitution. Look, he's not a conservative, and doesn't respect immigration laws, and I totally don't trust the man. He is a socialist, like the democrats, and I don't want to see our USA go down under the leadership of a republican. I will not help him take out the country.

[JohnnyMack]

Sorry, Jerk, McCain has proven to be a hotheaded, dishonest bully, and doesn't even apologize for McCain -Feingold, the most egregious assault on the First Amendment we've ever put into law, even though it violates the constitution. Look, he's not a conservative, and doesn't respect immigration laws, and I totally don't trust the man. He is a socialist, like the democrats, and I don't want to see our USA go down under the leadership of a republican. I will not help him take out the country.

So who are you voting for in the GE?

[r5TPsooner]

I hope Romney wins but likely he won't. If that happens, I'm still voting for McCain because he can't be any worse than Hilary or Obama.

However, I would like to note that Mitt is a sharp dressed man and has excellent taste in suits. Plus, his hair always looks perfect damnit!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So who are you voting for in the GE?Maybe Romney.

[JohnnyMack]

Maybe Romney.

Let's say the GE is McCain vs. Obama or McCain vs. Clinton.

Then who?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Let's say the GE is McCain vs. Obama or McCain vs. Clinton.

Then who?None of the three deserve a vote.

[Curly Bill]

Let's say the GE is McCain vs. Obama or McCain vs. Clinton.
Then who?

That's easy, McCain may not be the second coming of Ronald Reagan but he's certainly preferable to either of the two socialist candidates.

Republicans who will not support McCain against either of the two donks remind me of the old saying: cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[LosAngelesSooner]

PAY ATTENTION! Clearly, Romney lost in '94 to Kennedy because he tried to campaign as a liberal, and you can't out-democrat the real thing.. Later, when he won as Governor, he was much more conservative, and has increasingly become more conservative.OMFG! :D:D:D

So when Romney was lying to his true inner self by trying to be a dirty Lib...he LOST to the "Real Thing." But once he FOUND HIS TRUE SELF and let it out...he was redeemed...and won the elections.

So the Romney we have NOW is the REAL THING.

AMAZING spin.

:texan: