Sunday, December 18, 2011

In Case You Missed It...; Update: Palin calls in to Shannon Bream to weigh in on the campaign

Update: Palin doesn't seem too enthused with the field of candidates either...
...“My endorsement will be with sincerity and enthusiasm. I’m not there yet, and a personal endorsement does not amount to a hill of beans compared to the wisdom of the American voter,” former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin today said in a telephone interview with Shannon Bream of Fox News....

...Gov. Palin expressed frustration that “some in this field have had the opportunity to engage in sudden and relentless reform at the state and Congressional levels” but did not seize it and then speak about their plans and intentions moving forward. “Without naming names,” Gov. Palin said this frustration could apply to the entire field of candidates....


_____________________________________________________________

Last year, Mitt Romney said he wanted to "repeal the bad, and keep the good" parts of ObamaCare. This year, he says he wants to repeal the whole thing.



What would he really do? Apparently, we'll have to elect him to find out! What could go wrong?

Hot Air
makes an important point.
...As you watch this video, remember: When Romney talks about an “incentive” to purchase insurance, he’s talking about the individual mandate and the fine that applies to anyone who violates it....
To summarize...as of last year, Mitt Romney favored mandates at the federal level.

___________________________________________________________

Could the GOP be headed toward a brokered convention? Bill Kristol seems to think so.
...It could happen because it’s quite possible no one will emerge from the January primaries with a commanding lead in the delegate count, or a compelling surge in popular support. Four or more of the existing candidates could then continue to split votes—and delegates—through February and March. It would be even more likely to happen if someone new were to respond to a draft and enter the race belatedly, announcing his entry as early as mid-January or as late as early March—missing some primaries, to be sure, but getting on lots of ballots and getting lots of votes in April, May, and June. In any case, it might well happen that no candidate will have a majority of pledged delegates when Republicans enter the doors of the St. Pete Times Forum in Tampa in late August....
_____________________________________________________________

Apparently, the author of this article hasn't read Romney's book!
...Mitt Romney’s conservative achievements:

I honestly can’t think of one.

I can think of plenty of conservative things Mitt has said recently but actually done? I have nothing. Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and even Jon Huntsman have far more conservative records of actually doing things to advance conservative principles. Romney has no concrete example to point to....

49 comments:

Teemu said...

Employer offered healthcare has been tax free for decades unlike employer offered pay. That is incentive, so has there been a mandate for decades?

By the way Gingrich made a statement that can be interpreted as pro-federal mandate as late as May this year.

GetReal said...

Yeah, you're right, the guy probably hasn't read Romney's book...or come to the realization the guy isn't a legislator. As for as executive duties...the guy did turn a 3 billion dollar deficit into a 1 billion dollar surplus despite a veto-proof opposition state legislature without raising actual taxes. I consider that a conservative achievement.

Right Wingnut said...

Teemu,

For the 100th time...I'm NOT for Newt Gingrich.

I like Bill Kristol's idea.

Right Wingnut said...

GR,

Bill Clinton had similar success eliminating deficits (with the help of Newt). Does that make him a conservative too?

By the way...states HAVE to balance their budgets. They can't just crank up the printing press, or borrow more from China.

Anonymous said...

Right Wingnut lol. mitt romney is talking about his plan he had in massach u boob. hes saying there r some thing he would keep of his plan and some things he would get rid of. has nothing to do with obamacare

Right Wingnut said...

Anon,

This interview took place right after ObamaCare was signed into law. He explicitly sated that he likes some things in the bill, including the "incentives" to purchase insurance. Toward the end, he said he would "keep the good things" in the bill.

Seems fairly clear to me...

Teemu said...

"By the way...states HAVE to balance their budgets. They can't just crank up the printing press, or borrow more from China."

Have you heard of municipal bonds? They are same as government bonds (the way government's take loans) except they are for states or cities or whatever form of local government.

Slick-Willy said...

RW: "Seems fairly clear to me..."

Of course it does. You see everything through irrational hate-Mitt-regardless-of-reality glasses.

Although Mitt did say he'd keep what he liked, he also said he would get rid of what he didn't like. And he explained clearly what he didn't like: It (1) encroaches on states rights, (2) raises taxes/cuts medicare & (3) makes the government the price controller.

The first bullet point makes clear that a federal mandate is unacceptable. Even IF Mitt accepts mandates at the state level, he clearly views it encroaching on state sovereignty if used at the federal level. But naturally, your hatred for Mitt makes this obvious logic (and his many clear statements talking about a complete repeal) escape you.

Slick-Willy said...

RW: "By the way...states HAVE to balance their budgets. They can't just crank up the printing press, or borrow more from China."

Have you no knowledge of reality at all? States go deeply in debt ALL THE TIME. Texas currently carries over $30B debt on its books. Bonds can be issued at virtually every level of government. MA was not balancing its budget before Mitt arrived. It started when he got there.

RW, your irrational hatred has made you completely blind to reality.

Right Wingnut said...

Slick,

So in other words....he was straddling both sides of the issue until his pollster was able to assess the mood of the electorate. He clearly stated that he liked mandates, and stated that he would keep the stuff he liked.

Right Wingnut said...

Other than Vermont, all states have a legal requirement to balance their budgets.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12660

Terrye said...

RWN:

You do not even know what you are talking about..most people agree that certain things will still be there..largely because they have already been put in force..stuff like a ban on the limit that insurance companies and pre existing conditions.

It is nice to see you and Allah over at Hot Air nitpicking every single thing Romney has ever said..it is notable that you don't bother to do that with any other candidate.

Terrye said...

States have to balance their budgets...go tell that to New York and California.

Alan said...

Bill Kristol has always been a card-carrying member of the ABR party. He initially pushed Christie to get into the race (who then endorsed Romney), and then he pushed very, very hard on Paul Ryan to get into the race (who then endorsed Romney). You'd think he would get a clue from that, but he ran out of time and alternative candidates, so now he is pushing this brokered convention malarkey that won't happen. And even if it did happen, I suspect the resulting mayhem would result a broken Republican party, which would no longer exist in its current form.

Lionhead said...

RW, Good catch here! Especially the DM video. Mixed messages is all we 'hear' from Mitt.

"Quidem concessum est rhetoribus ementiri in historiis ut aliquid dicere possint argutius."

Translation: "Indeed rhetoricians are permitted to lie about historical matters so they can speak more subtly."

Brutus, 42, Marcus Tullius Cicero

Mitt has pushed the envelope of being subtle into the ionosphere, the part of the earth's atmosphere in which ionization of atmospheric gases (his rhetoric) affects the propagation of radio waves. His messages are garbled into a static of random noise & ramblings.

Like Pelosi, we'll just have to elect him before we actually know what his agenda is & where he will lead us.

Your detractors are not answering your arguments. Instead, they slowly start to change the subject of your posting & finish by marginalizing & attacking you. This is the stuff of the socialist/marxist progressives on Team O.

If the Team M people are employing the same tactics of Team O, they're going to strengthen & steal the loins of the ABR retail voters.

Right Wingnut said...

Massachusetts is required to pass a “balanced budget”. Article 63, Section 2 of the 1780 Constitution addresses the need for the governor to set forth all expenditures and all revenues and other means “by which such expenditures shall be defrayed.” More importantly, Chapter 29, Section 6E of the State law requires the governor to submit, and the general assembly to pass, a general appropriations bill which constitutes a balanced budget. If a deficiency in revenue exists, Chapter 29, Section 9C requires the governor to reduce spending or propose ways to generate additional revenue.

Terrye said...

lionheads:

What arguments has RWN raised? I mean really...it is the just the same old cherry picking comments out of context he and his ilk always do with Romney...now they hate when someone does it with their own favorite people, like say Sarah Palin, but that does not keep them from doing the same thing themselves.

You do not even know what Romney was referring to here and neither does RWN..

As far as Bill Kristol is concerned...he was on Fox this morning shilling for Gingrich and btw, the folks at Hot Air and all the real true conservative places hate Kristol, the only reason he is getting any play now is that he hates Romney. So I would not necessarily assume that Kristol is the go to guy here.

Lionhead said...

@Alan, Please send Spock down to visit Mitt. He's in dire need of logic in his statements & to help him clean up his intercourse with voters. He needs a makeover; his body language, arm & leg movements, at his visit to the Iowa steel mill reminds me of C-3PO. He needs a new hard drive.

Loving eyes cannot see...

Terrye said...

A lot of states require that there be a balanced budget, but they still go over all the time..what do you think those rainy day funds are for?

Terrye said...

lionhead..

I don't think Romney is the one who is lacking in logic...it is the extreme anal need of some people to dissect each and every statement..including those with little or no contexts and look for some sort of inconsistency..it is ridiculous.

Romney has always called for the repeal of Obamacare..that does not mean that if there are certain provisions in there that a majority of the American people want to keep like say, help for people with pre existing conditions or incentives of some kind that they will not still be there. But that depends on what you are talking about..the bill is 2000 pages after all.

Terrye said...

lionhead..body language? Really?

This is just silly.

GetReal said...

Texas wasn't going to be able to balance the budget, until they got all of that Obama stimulus money under Governor Perry.

California is required to balance its budget, but as a resident of the state, I can assure you that it didn't stop us from going into debt.

Right Wingnut said...

Wrong,Terrye. Immediately after passage, Romney put out a statement vowing to repeal onlyl the "worst aspects" of ObamaCare. He was subsequently asked if that included the individual mandate at a book signing by Kavon Nikrad. His answer? "No."

Terrye said...

Right Wingnut..

No, I am not wrong. Romney has said that there are things about his own plan he would change if he could.

And what is your point? I would think that repealing the worst aspects of Obamacare would be a good thing..the truth is you idiot, that there are parts of the plan that have already been implemented..it might not be possible to immediately repeal absolutely every bit of it and there are parts of that bill that actually had some bi partisan support..but Republicans voted against it because of the rest of the bill..Issues like pre existing conditions, dealing with the limit that some insurance companies place on certain policies, the idea that there could be incentives to help certain people buy health insurance..things like that were areas where there could be bi partisan support.

You have created a situation here where any kind of deviance what so ever is seen as some sort of gotcha! moment. That is crazy.

Ohio JOE said...

"A lot of states require that there be a balanced budget, but they still go over all the time" There is a difference between going over and actually proposing an unbalanced budget.

Massachusetts Conservative said...

RW,

A mandate is an incentive to purchase insurance.

... But SO IS a tax break.

Mitt is on record for the last 10 years, including today on Fox News Sunday, saying he favors providing a new tax incentive to those who have health insurance as an INCENTIVE to have health insurance.

Incentives don't HAVE to be mandates. However, a mandate is ONE form of incentive, and Mitt likes incentives.

The kind of incentives Mitt FAVORS, however, are tax breaks, not tax increases or fines.

Terrye said...

MassConservative...they don't get that...they think that when Romney is talking about incentives he has to be talking about a federal mandate..they are mind readers doncha know.

The truth is that Romney tried to put an opt out for the mandate in his bill and the Democratic legislature would not go along with it..even then he preferred giving people an incentive to buy insurance rather than just punishing them when they don't...


And Jim DeMint...King of the True Conservatives loved the plan, back then..so if we are going to take these trips down memory lane why don't we just play some of those old tapes of Beck and Rush and Levin and Laura loving on Romney...and Hot Air has just lost its collective mind. I used to go there, but they have just gone nuts...and their hits show it.

Terrye said...

And besides, Romney says in no uncertain terms in this tape that he does not support the federal government trying to force this kind of bill onto the states. He stresses that..the difference between a state and federal program...you would think that a bunch of conservatives would understand the difference.

Right Wingnut said...

Terry,

"keep the good, repeal the bad parts."

"repeal the worst aspects"

What parts of the bill did Mitt believe to be constitutional when he said that?

BOSMAN said...

Blah...Blah...Blah!

RWN, What don't you get?

Romney inherited Massachusetts with a $3 Billion deficit. Perhaps previous administrations didn't get the memo on the balancing the budget?

The FACT REMAINS, we were $3 BILLON in the hole when Mitt took over. WHEN HE LEFT, we had a 1 BILLION SURPLUS. Perhaps this surplus occured through osmosis? Is that what your saying?

Ohio JOE said...

"What parts of the bill did Mitt believe to be constitutional when he said that?" They have no clue RW.

Alan said...

Certainly Romney has flipped on a number of issues, but he has flopped back on very few of them. His moves have always been rightward and once the move has been made, he has stayed there.

Why is it that we want people to come around to our way of thinking, but then excoriate them for the positions they no longer hold? Shouldn't we be happy when someone has come around to our way of thinking?

It's ok to dislike Romney for his current positions (which are conservative positions), but being against Romney for flip-flopping is merely a facade to hide the real reason for being against Romney.

marK said...

RWN,

It's time to face facts. Sarah Palin ain't gonna happening. She is NOT going to be a late entrant. She is NOT going to run third party. There will NOT be a brokered convention. It's simply not going to happen no matter how much dumpin' on Romney or anyone else you do.

So what is the point of all this? Is it because you can't be happy with your choice, so you feel compelled to make others as unhappy as you are? Surely you have better use of your time.

At least pick someone else to support and be positive about them. Try to convince all of us that your new choice is the best choice of the field. Just sitting there grossing about one candidate, rehashing tired old talking points is not going to make you feel any better. It never does. It only makes things worse.

Slick-Willy said...

RW: "So in other words....he was straddling both sides of the issue until his pollster was able to assess the mood of the electorate."

Nonsense. But again, your deep hate for Mitt seems to cause you to interpret anything he says w/severe bias.

He never said he liked mandates. He said he liked "incentive" for everyone to get insurance. In MA the mandate was a substantial incentive. But to you, the only correct interpretation of any Mitt statement can ONLY be the worst possible interpretation.

And, even if I made the ASSUMPTION (as you do) that by "incentive" Mitt meant "mandate," it does not follow that he likes it at the federal level. In fact, anyone with any perception could see that he does not approve of anything that steps on states rights, which the federal mandate clearly does.

Moreover, the entire argument is a totally mute point. At least 100 times since this interview Mitt has stated that he would repeal Obamacare in its entirety. And Mitt has a long history of completing the promises he makes when he takes on an enterprise. To act like any of this matters is disingenuous; this information could only be compelling to a slanted warped mind like yours.

Terrye said...

As if I care what Sarah Palin thinks..is she running out of money...does she need to hit the true believers up for some more Sarah pac cash?

Terrye said...

Right Wing Nut:

Well considering the fact that he said in the tape that you yourself linked to that he did not support the federal government getting in front of the states on this issue..it seems to plain to me what he did not support.


No wonder politicians speak in mindless platitudes..anything else gets them crucified.

FastFacts said...

It is funny that people miss that he has already spoken on this. He said earlier that the best thing to do is to repeal the whole thing, easier to do and more effective to get rid of the bad and then re-introduce the good measures.

Sorry to say it, there were some good ideas, such as the insurance exchanged, yet Massachusetts did that better because they made it market oriented and not controlled by the country.

THIS IS OLD NEWS ALREADY TALKED ABOUT BY ROMNEY... FIND SOMETHING TRULY DISASTEROUS THEN WE WILL TALK.

DanL said...

"Gov. Palin expressed frustration that “some in this field have had the opportunity to engage in sudden and relentless reform at the state and Congressional levels” but did not seize it and then speak about their plans and intentions moving forward."

Is she still going on about her quitting mid term? Move on Sarah, we all make mistakes, at least you've learned from yours and decided not to run for president, a job that would be much more taxing than governor of Alaska.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone really care what the quitter has to say? I don't think so.

Doug NYC GOP said...

"The good" which somew of you conspiracy thoerists have undies all wadded up over, include things like covering people with pre-existing conditions and making your insurance more portable. All aspects of the plan which many GOP leaders like.

There is nothing sinister or sneaky in the man's comments, just in your analysis.

And oh yeah...

Palin is soooo 2008.

She's a Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda but i can't gal bthrough and through.

Anonymous said...

i wish fox would just pay palin to shutup, shes a has been, and never took running for president seriously and thank God for that. Had she been in the field, she would be running behind ron paul and if she were to be nominee would get owned by obama.

Anonymous said...

Princess Pixie Dust is 100% irrelevant to the national discussion.
-- She is poorly educated, thinks the Russians won the space race.
-- She has trouble staying focused: 5 colleges in 5 years.
-- She believes that dinosaurs and people lived side-by-side 5,000 years ago.
-- She couldn't keep her high school daughter from jumping in the back seat w/Levi Johnson.

She's a complete fraud, but FOX keeps trotting her out like a potted plant.

Anonymous said...

Fox is desperately trying to get some value out of their ill-advised investment in this grifter, but she has yet to come up with an original or interesting idea.

Right Wingnut said...

Ahhh...the anonymous Mittheads show up to show their colors.

Actually, I'm beginning to think it's SMEllie.

Anonymous said...

LOL we still love you uncle RW!

Anonymous said...

Palin has no courage. There has been something like a million debates, she knows all the people running and where they stand, there is nothing left to wait for. She's just going to wait for a clear winner to emerge and then endorse them. What a coward.

Flagkeeper said...

That is quite a bit of stretch and spin that one could have only concluded if they never studied Romney, but just didn't like him for some odd reason. Aside from his book, if you had bothered, to watch the rest of your own clip, the glaring distinction between state and federal is discussed. These kinds of distortions do no one any service. Watch the 1994 debates with Kennedy if you want to see where he still stands on so many of the issues. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenatorialDeba

Anonymous said...

Palin who? This is so sad. She is no longer 'important'.

Anonymous said...

956 was me. Sorry. RWN, It may surprise you, but it was not me who posted yesterday. I was in church, then we took the kids to grandma's, then we cooked dinner, then we made some christmas candy. You just can't stand it that other's think she's a washed up old crone.
ellie