Sunday, December 11, 2011

Rick Perry would have lost the Bet because HE LIED

Have you noticed the spin concerning the $10,000.00 bet that Romney offered to make with Rick "What Me Worry" Perry during last night's GOP debate?. Instead of Talking about the fact that Perry IS A LIAR, and that Romney would have WON THE BET, Some pundits want to somehow portrait it as a Romney gaff. I DON'T GET IT:

Of course Richard "THE LIARhearted" continued to spew this false accusation with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. He must have known no one would challenge him there as long as his lie was directed at Romney.

What the books say

Perry's grievance is with differences between hardcover and paperback editions of Romney's book. We've combed through Chapter 7 of both.

Romney's changes to the book have been explored before, by Boston political journalist David S. Bernstein. He noted in February 2011 that Romney had added harsher language on the national health care law as passed: "Obamacare will not work and should be repealed," and, "Obamacare is an unconstitutional federal incursion into the rights of states."

Romney more clearly explained ways that he disagreed with implementation of the Massachusetts law.

He also changed this line, which came after a paragraph touting the success of the Massachusetts health plan:

Hardcover: "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care."

Paperback: "And it was done without government taking over health care."

The deleted 11 words, "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country" are the crux of Perry's argument. His campaign sent e-mail the day after the debate with a link highlighting precisely that change.

It looks suspicious, right? Perhaps Romney did extol every piece of his Massachusetts plan, individual mandate and all, for every state in the union.

But here's the original quote with full context from Page 177 of the hardcover:

"My own preference would be to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model of they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state 'laboratories of democracy' could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others. But the creation of a national plan is the direction in which Washington is currently moving. If a national approach is ultimately adopted, we should permit individuals to purchase insurance from companies in other states in order to expand choice and competition.

"What we accomplished surprised us: 440,000 people who previously had no health insurance became insured, many paying their own way. We made it possible for each newly insured person to have better care, and ultimately healthier and longer lives. From now on, no one in Massachusetts has to worry about losing his or her health insurance if there is a job change or a loss in income; everyone is insured and pays only what he or she can afford. It's portable, affordable health insurance — something people have been talking about for decades. We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care."

Romney's not really saying the Massachusetts law "should be the model for the country," the way that Perry describes it. He's in fact presenting a defense of state-level choice. It's like a shout-out to other state leaders: Hey, you can have what Massachusetts has!

And it's consistent with what Romney fired back at Perry in the Sept. 22, 2011 debate: "This is a state plan for a state, it is not a national plan." And with how he characterized his own book in the most recent debate: "I say, in my view, each state should be able to fashion their own program for the specific needs of their distinct citizens."

Romney did support Massachusetts' individual mandate. But we don't see evidence in his hardcover book that he supported a federal one, much less that he removed such a reference from later editions.
So now I guess I can assume that not only is being a serial adulterer acceptable behavior in the conservative movement of the Republican party, serial lying is acceptable as well.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.


BOSMAN said...

Perry states that Iowans will think that Romney is out of touch with them, maybe he's right.

Iowans who support Gingrich's serial adultery and think that Perry's LIEING is more acceptable than Romney calling him out on it, obviously have LOWER moral STANDARDS than Romney and this writer.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Bosman! I've been waiting for someone to actually quote the entire section from the book!

What I find curious is how everyone has their shorts in a bunch over a silly bet, rather than the fact that Perry is a LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE guy! I mean come on . . .


Anonymous said...


Okay. Back in 08, the religious right kept insisting over and over and over that OF COURSE it was not Romney's faith they were opposed to. Oh sure they would vote for a Mormon, just not THIS Mormon. It was the flip-flopping thing don't you know.

Then here comes Newt and blows Romney right out of the water in the flip-flop/no core dept. NO CONTEST. Not only that, he's a serial adulterer--a selfish man devoid of morals. And not only THAT--he's freakin' nuts to boot. How about a lunar colony on the moon with mirrors so we don't need street lights. Anyone?

And that's not even touching his temperament and dreams of grandiosity. The man thinks he won the cold war, and made Romney rich, for crying out loud.

Enough said. It's put up or shut up time for the religious right. You said Romney's faith was not the problem. Now you have choice between a nutjob wife-cheating, lying DC insider megalomaniac, or the man who is actually qualified, but just happens to be a Mormon. Time to make your choice.


Terrye said...

I read the book. I knew Perry was lying. And the media does too, but they don't care.

Anonymous said...

This election is fixed by the corporations that own the media. I am completely fed up with the whole process.

Right Wingnut said...


I wonder why Mitt felt the need to delete those 11 words from the paperback?

Anonymous said...

RW, because it was poorly worded, and left the wrong impression. It's not complicated, and there's not a thing wrong with Romney clarifying so that there are no misunderstandings.

You should read the book, and then you would understand where Romney truly stands on healthcare, RW. Oh, but you can't because you want to keep using false talking points and dreaming up fake issues.

Honestly, I don't see how anyone can go out and make these false claims who has not read the book.


Right Wingnut said...


He's been all over the map on the issue, so I don't care what he wrote in his book. He now says he stands by RomneyCare. That's all I need to know.

Right Wingnut said...

And he did say that RomneyCare would be a "model for the nation" shortly after it was signed into law with Ted Kennedy looking over his shoulder.

BOSMAN said...



I wonder why Mitt felt the need to delete those 11 words from the paperback?"

Well it doesn't matter, does it? Because Shortened it means the same thing.

Perhaps Romney has a mischievous streak and wanted to confuse those who are mentally challenged?

Right Wingnut said...

By the way...can someone explain how any of this helps Mitt? Did he really need to pick a fight with Perry? He also called him out on Gardisil again. Was that his strategy going in to the debate? If I'm not mistaken, Mitt needs Perry to take votes from Newt.

Anonymous said...

RW. He has NOT been "all over the map". He has never switched his position. You're just a liar, or an idiot, or both.

Politifact, FactCheck, and the Washington Post looked into this ridiculous claim and they all agreed.

BOSMAN said...


"By the way...can someone explain how any of this helps Mitt? Did he really need to pick a fight with Perry? He also called him out on Gardisil again. Was that his strategy going in to the debate? If I'm not mistaken, Mitt needs Perry to take votes from Newt. "

Selective memory is it. I recall, it was Perry that brought it up first last night.

Want to review?

Terrye said...

Right Wing do not know what you are talking about. I got the book, Mitt actually talks about the changes in the book itself..and why shouldn't he take on Perry is Perry is lying?

Anonymous said...

Mitt had to bring up perry's mandate just to remind perry that he is noone to talk since he tried and failed to have a health mandate in texas

Right Wingnut said...


In the earlier debates, he avoided conflict with the single digit crowd. I suspect that was his plan last night as well. He blew it.

Terrye said...

Right wing Nut...That crack about Kennedy was especially stupid. Mitt Romney is from Mass...what is your point? Have you read the book? Do you know what measures he vetoed and what were over ridden? Do you know that the Heritage Foundation helped write the bill? don't know much.

But if you want to know what Romney is saying about this go to:

Right Wingnut said...

Terrye, Where did I excuse the Heritage Foundation, and why should I care that they supported the bill?

Terrye said...

Right Wing Nut..maybe he was tired of listening to Perry lie his ass off on this issue.

What is funny is that the rightie cry babies complain that Romney is not a real man..not a fighter, like Newtie..but then when he responds with humor to some pest..they make a huge deal of it..hell Gingrich got brought up on 84 ethics violations and they could care less.


Right Wingnut said...


I don't think he was "responding with humor." That was rage.

BOSMAN said...



In the earlier debates, he avoided conflict with the single digit crowd. I suspect that was his plan last night as well. He blew it."

Yeh, you're right, Romney should have just stood there and let Perry go unchallenged on a lie.

What would that headline have looked like today?

Terrye said...

Right Wing Nut...well, I don't know maybe because the Heritage Foundation is this big conservative think tank that luminaries like Rush Limbaugh are always shilling for.

And you are not being honest about what Romney said either.

He did not say that anyone else would want this plan just like it is in Mass. In fact if you bothered to read his book, he makes the point that Mass was different from a state like Texas for instance because Mass had the lowest rate of uninsured of any state in the country and because they had additional funding coming to the state for the health care of the poor and that money could be used to help defray the costs. He also said that this bill was supported by a large majority in the state and that was important for such a measure to be successful...

You don't know what you are talking about here..besides, the base is seriously considering nominating a man who has been shilling for a national mandate for 18 I guess that makes it moot.

Terrye said...

Rage??? I don't think so..I think he was sick of hearing it and so he thought he would use a joke to deflate it..the very fact that you have grabbed onto something so ridiculous is just bizarre in and of itself...

People make statements like that everyday..I bet a million bucks...

Anonymous said...

RW, rage? You are just off your rocker lately. I don't know what else to say. Go watch the debate again.


Right Wingnut said...

If that was humor, then Mitt needs a new joke writer.

Terrye said...

He was laughing. I was laughing. The audience laughed...I don't remember security being called in to save poor iddle Perry from the big bad Romney.

Pathetic and petty and nitpicky..meanwhile we have got Gingrich with all that lovely baggage..that is what this is about..covering for Gingrich...get people talking about something other than what a crook he is..

Anonymous said...

RW and if you think Romney "erupted" in his interview with baier, then you need to come over and call me ugly and ill show you eruption.

Terrye said...

He did not erupt with Baier, he got testy. So did I. In fact, I have not watched Special Report since then. They are just shilling for Gingrich..after all, Rupert has a big book deal with him.

Right Wingnut said...

anon 1t 9:57,

You wouldn't want to do that.

Anonymous said...

RW, my point being that to say romney erupted in that interview is exaggerating it, annoyed maybe, erupting, nonsense.

Noelle said...

I've been gone or busy all day, and therefore have not had the opportunity to weigh in on the $10,000 bet.

The amount is, for me irrelevant. There are, however, 2 issues that are relevant to me. The first is that I am surprised that Romney offered to make any bet in the first place. As a Mormon, I have often received counsel to refrain from gambling. I am surprised and disappointed that Romney offered to make any bet in such a high profile manner.

The second issue is that in all of the hubbub surrounding the bet, the most important issue has been ignored by the major media outlets. They are so busy condemning the rich guy Romney, that they are ignoring the fact that Perry would have lost the bet because he was either uninformed/ignorant of the facts, or he was lying. Romney knew he was right (and I think Perry knew he was wrong).

All in all, in spite of my disappointment with Romney for offering to make the bet, I continue to be convinced that Romney is by far the best man for the job. I don't think I can ever get past Gingrich's lack of integrity toward his own family, but I further cannot support him because of his inflammatory speech, and the fact that he is the consummate Washington insider. He is smart, sure, and he's a good speaker, but so is Obama (according to some). Those 2 traits are not sufficient to qualify to earn my support.

Doug NYC GOP said...

Great post Bos.

Inane comments RWN.

The universe is balanced.

Terrye said...


I think the bet was a rhetorical devise. It was not meant to be an actual bet.

Noelle said...

Terrye, I suspect you are right. It certainly illustrated the point that Romney was very confident that he is right, and it equally illustrated that Perry knows he's wrong. The unfortunately element is that the talking heads are ignoring that point.

Anonymous said...

If that's Romney rage? We are in for an excellent Romney administration with an even tempered president!

Machtyn said...

Well said, Ellie.

"And he did say that RomneyCare would be a 'model for the nation' shortly after it was signed into law with Ted Kennedy looking over his shoulder."

Well, sure he did. English is a funny language and "model for the nation" is certainly ambiguous. Does he mean "model for the nation at the national level" or "model for the nation of states"? Obviously, the answer is the latter. How do we know that? Because of the several thousand times Mitt Romney has qualified that statement in speeches, in letters, in a book, and in plans.

Anonymous said...

great post, thanks! obviously romney knows what his book says. mitt is the one who wrote it!