Official Romney for President Exploratory Committee Thread

[Uncle Ted]

lol. You realize those trends perfectly align with the presidencies?

You need to align the trends with who has control of congress and not with who is in control of the white house.

[oxcoug]

But the thingofit is, that ad itself is indicative of Romney's problem . . . Romney just doesn't get people. That ad would have been brilliant if he had just stopped three seconds earlier. Or said "find out more at Rom.com." How do neither he nor his ad execs see that? But to use the imperative in that context to tell people to give him money, I think it makes people bristle.

For real? I think it makes Babs bristle. Not sure if it makes people bristle. How many of these "people" you refer to not posting as Babs on CUF don't understand that even rich guys need to raise tons of money when they run for president and if you believe that they'd make a better president than the guy currently in the White House that it's worth considering a donation?

I think you're describing the emotional response of people who are predisposed to bristling at Romney.

Why is there not an emoticon pointing a finger while raising it's eyebrows?

[oxcoug]

This is the most convincing take I've seen as a case for Romney defending his Mass health care bill.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ccarthy?page=1

I think McCarthy nails it in this part.

If I were living in Massachusetts (or anyplace else), I would argue that health care is not a corporate asset and that it’s none of anyone’s business whether I choose to buy coverage. But if I lost that debate, and if the coercive mandate law bothered me enough, I could move to some state where the law was different. Or I might decide that, in the greater scheme of things, life in Massachusetts was worth enduring the nuisance and costs of state policies to which I objected. But in either event, none of my calculations would be the concern of someone living in, say, Colorado — at least as long as he wasn’t being made to pay for it.

To the contrary, Romney’s competitors opined that the federal constitution barred states like Massachusetts from imposing an individual mandate as part of an effort to ensure that every citizen in the state was covered. And from there, the putative champions of limited government went haywire. Some want gay marriage banned. Some want abortion banned and criminalized. If you listened to them long enough, it was like listening to Democrats: If I disapprove of it, surely it must be prohibited. If I approve, surely it must be the law.

[Tim]

This is the most convincing take I've seen as a case for Romney defending his Mass health care bill.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ccarthy?page=1

I think McCarthy nails it in this part.

I've heard/seen this argument a number of times, and I can understand why it might seem like a valid, discussion-ending explanation to those on the inside (meaning: those who support Romney). From the outside, though, any attempt to continue to logically justify Romney's flip-flop just feels like a cop-out. Romney and his supporters should own the flip-flop, accept that he's changed his opinion for political reasons, and find a way to make that change work given the political/economic landscape, rather than continue to try and suggest that it's either not a flip-flop or that it's somehow explainable in a state-vs-federal debate.

[oxcoug]

I've heard/seen this argument a number of times, and I can understand why it might seem like a valid, discussion-ending explanation to those on the inside (meaning: those who support Romney). From the outside, though, any attempt to continue to logically justify Romney's flip-flop just feels like a cop-out. Romney and his supporters should own the flip-flop, accept that he's changed his opinion for political reasons, and find a way to make that change work given the political/economic landscape, rather than continue to try and suggest that it's either not a flip-flop or that it's somehow explainable in a state-vs-federal debate.

Tim I really don't understand your argument here - McCarthy is not a "Romney supporter" and I myself am at best an ambivalent "supporter" as I'm only interested in finding out if there's one (please let there be one!) adult on economic issues in the presidential field for the coming election, and I think Romney is it..

It comes down to this: Either there is a significant difference between implementing a customized solution on the state level and attempting to impose a one-size-fits-all solution from the top down - or there isn't.

If there is a meaningful distinction between the two then what Romney has done can't be dismissed as a "flip flop" - it's not some nifty dodge, it's the reality that it is fitting to pursue this type of solution on the state level for MA but not fitting to force it down the throats of a national population where 60% plus were opposed to it.

In that light it's totally consistent for Romney to say "it works for MA, and I would veto the national bill."

[Tim]

In that light it's totally consistent for Romney to say "it works for MA, and I would veto the national bill."

But that's not the approach that was taken. Before the flip-flop it was painted by Romney as "This works for MA, and could be a valid model for the nation."

[Uncle Ted]

Romney just has to be less of a flip-flop than Obama which doesn't seem like that hard to do.

[LA Ute]

But that's not the approach that was taken. Before the flip-flop it was painted by Romney as "This works for MA, and could be a valid model for the nation."

Tim, I don't think Romney ever said that. I recall him saying that Romneycare was right for Masachusetts, but wouldn't be right for the entire country. I could be wrong. I say this as a guy who was enthusiastic about Romenycare and actually asked Romney at public Q&A session if Romenycare might be a model for the country (this was in 2007). He said it would not be, that each state needed to figure out its own approach. So he has been totally consistent on that point, as far as I know.

[myboynoah]

Run, Sarah, Run!

[Babs]

Tim, I don't think Romney ever said that.

Actually, if you search through the news you'll see that he said it repeatedly from 2007 through 2009. For awhile he said that the entire proposal would serve as a "model" or "blueprint" or "example" for the rest of the nation. As problems arose he started to back off and by 2009 was saying that certain "aspects" of the plan should serve as a model for national health care reform. As you know, by 2010, he was saying that it worked for Massachusetts (some would disagree), but might not be right for the nation as a whole.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Exactly right. He was all over the place pimping his successes with that one.

He backpedaled a bit when the Catholic hospitals started screaming that they were going to be required to perform abortions, then basically quit showing his face in Mass and started running for Pres. and pitched himself as a 'Solutions' candidate.

[Borderline Divine]

Good for a laugh

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...D=21049#c21051