"I keep hearing the president say he's responsible for keeping the country out of a Great Depression," Romney said at a town hall in Arbutus, Maryland. "No, no, no, that was President George W. Bush and [then-Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson."
HOW ARE YOU SO BAD AT THIS
To be fair, that's basically a republican talking point.
Just like how it's a republican talking point that Obama is completely responsible for the recession. And the wars.
Oh but 9/11 was Clinton's fault.
Someone actually tried to take Hannity to task for this today on his radio show. He pointed out that they talk about everything that happens like its in a bubble...except for the stuff that would make their side look bad, that's totally the fault of the previous guy.
If he ever says Obama helped the economy that will be the end of his campaign. There is no other ground to stand on that will be influenced by anything anybody does up to election time.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Six of the last ten governors of California have been Republicans. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Kathleen Sibelius was governor of Kansas.
Who a state will elect governor has little (if any) bearing on who they will vote for for Congress or the Presidency.
What's up with that? Are the Democrats running for governor there incompetent or something?
I reckon its cognitive dissonance between "local" Democrats and "national" Democrats.
As I recall, Garamendi did not get any support from the party when he ran against Schwarzenegger, so that's something.
Why didn't they support him?
Probably because there was no way the Terminator was not going to win the governorship.
Six of the last ten governors of California have been Republicans. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Kathleen Sibelius was governor of Kansas.
Who a state will elect governor has little (if any) bearing on who they will vote for for Congress or the Presidency.
What's up with that? Are the Democrats running for governor there incompetent or something?
I reckon its cognitive dissonance between "local" Democrats and "national" Democrats.
As I recall, Garamendi did not get any support from the party when he ran against Schwarzenegger, so that's something.
Why didn't they support him?
Probably because there was no way the Terminator was not going to win the governorship.
Because semi-moderate Republican married to a Kennedy
Just when I think the Democrats can't get any less incompetent they prove me wrong. :evil:
they get more competent?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Six of the last ten governors of California have been Republicans. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Kathleen Sibelius was governor of Kansas.
Who a state will elect governor has little (if any) bearing on who they will vote for for Congress or the Presidency.
What's up with that? Are the Democrats running for governor there incompetent or something?
I reckon its cognitive dissonance between "local" Democrats and "national" Democrats.
As I recall, Garamendi did not get any support from the party when he ran against Schwarzenegger, so that's something.
Why didn't they support him?
Probably because there was no way the Terminator was not going to win the governorship.
The simplest version is that things here were shit, we elected a Democrat with the inevitable Republican legislature due to the way the population is distributed, things did not improve, so Snyder wins.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Yeah. Obama and Howard Dean are very competent IMO. Unfortunately they're very rare Democrats.
Howard Dean... There is a guy that doesn't get enough credit. His 50 state plan was genius... well not so much genius as how a national party is supposed to act. You challenge every seat you can, no matter how much of a long shot it is. You run Blue Dog DINO's if you have to, even if you can't count on them to vote for you, because having people with a tiny D next to their name gives you power in Washington. Lets face it, as bad as the Blue Dogs are, a republican from most of the same districts would be worse.
Fight to get your case heard, not just wait until the opinion polls go your way(Obama has a big problem there). Don't let the other side frame the debate.
Is it any wonder the Democratic party establishment hate Howard Dean.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Yeah. Obama and Howard Dean are very competent IMO. Unfortunately they're very rare Democrats.
Howard Dean... There is a guy that doesn't get enough credit. His 50 state plan was genius... well not so much genius as how a national party is supposed to act. You challenge every seat you can, no matter how much of a long shot it is. You run Blue Dog DINO's if you have to, even if you can't count on them to vote for you, because having people with a tiny D next to their name gives you power in Washington. Lets face it, as bad as the Blue Dogs are, a republican from most of the same districts would be worse.
Fight to get your case heard, not just wait until the opinion polls go your way(Obama has a big problem there). Don't let the other side frame the debate.
Is it any wonder the Democratic party establishment hate Howard Dean.
I have to agree. 50 state strategy was a great idea. I hate the party bureaucracy that fights against it.
It's such a perfect metaphor for him though. If it gets them to tangentially confirm that he's you know, a gigantic fucking liar all the time, I'll let them be those four year old soccer players.
I'd much rather the media actually ask him about this part.
Rachel Maddow devoted about 20 minutes of her show the other night to the comparison of Romney to an Etch-a-Sketch and absolutely wrecked him on how he lies all the time and with such ease. It was pretty great, I spent today showing the clip to people who actually thought he'd be a good president and seeing all of his primary lies laid out at one time like that, it changed some minds.
It's such a perfect metaphor for him though. If it gets them to tangentially confirm that he's you know, a gigantic fucking liar all the time, I'll let them be those four year old soccer players.
I'd much rather the media actually ask him about this part.
Rachel Maddow devoted about 20 minutes of her show the other night to the comparison of Romney to an Etch-a-Sketch and absolutely wrecked him on how he lies all the time and with such ease. It was pretty great, I spent today showing the clip to people who actually thought he'd be a good president and seeing all of his primary lies laid out at one time like that, it changed some minds.
It's not difficult to change minds when their opinions weren't based on anything.
That's one of the many frustrating aspects about the primary / politics.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Some Republican consultant is on Hardball, and Matthews asked him about how to deal with the etch a sketch gaff in the general election.
The republican says, "Yeah, you just write 'Obamacare' on it, and shake it. See? It's gone."
That's...actually kinda brilliant.
It's true, though.
The base of the GOP is like the shitty people at concert who get all excited when the band mentions the name of the city the concert is in.
"I hope everyone tonight is ready to rock the shit out of . . . . . . PROVIDENCE MOTHERFUCKING RHODE ISLAND!!!"
"WOOOOO! We love you, Foghat!!"
You just need to make up bingo cards with these words:
- Obamacare
- Debt Ceiling
- Socialism
- Drilling
- Family Values
- Tax & Spend
- Fair Share
- Corporate Taxes
- Death Culture
- Exceptionalism
- 2nd Amendment
- Religious Freedom
- State's Rights
- Marriage Amendment
- The Founding Fathers
- Nuclear Family
- Elitists
- Snobs
- Hard-Working
- Bootstraps
- Illegal Immigration
- Cheese Grits
Ron Paul is taking his GOP rivals to task for jumping on the Etch A Sketch political metaphor in a new Web video out today.
The stark video opens with the clip of Mitt Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom first mentioning the child's toy when talking about how the presidential campaign will be reset in the fall. Fehrnstrom's line and offshoots from it have been widely used this week.
The Web video uses images of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich brandishing Etch a Sketches at campaign events, along with TV pundits and newscasters making references to the political gaffe before shifting to text about war, debt and unemployment.
"Tired of the games?" the video asks, before touting Paul as the candidate who is "principled" and "consistent" with a "serious" plan to address the nation's woes.
Although currently only posted on the Web, the Texas congressman has a history of converting his videos attacking his rivals into TV commercials that run in key primary states. No word yet on when or if that will happen in this case.
Someone wants a VP nom.
When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
Some Republican consultant is on Hardball, and Matthews asked him about how to deal with the etch a sketch gaff in the general election.
The republican says, "Yeah, you just write 'Obamacare' on it, and shake it. See? It's gone."
That's...actually kinda brilliant.
That could just as easily be a Santorum ad.
You write Romneycare on it, shake it to pretend he was never Gov when Mass created a plan just like Obama's.
Again, it's all just a game to see who can be the most polar opposite of Obama. The GOP leadership loved Romneycare 4 years ago.
And now they are stuck with a guy who recommended the individual mandate on a national scale.
"Thank you for the advice, Mitt" Obama says in the debate. That's going to traumatize some low-info watchers.
The biggest hurdle I think Romney faces is that HHS has given the states TONS of leeway in implementing health care reform, so the argument that it should be a state's decision isn't even that strong (although a state cannot just opt out of the individual mandate).
Rachel Maddow devoted about 20 minutes of her show the other night to the comparison of Romney to an Etch-a-Sketch and absolutely wrecked him on how he lies all the time and with such ease. It was pretty great, I spent today showing the clip to people who actually thought he'd be a good president and seeing all of his primary lies laid out at one time like that, it changed some minds.
Two segments, actually. Though the first was more of a prologue and based off the Etch-a-Sketch comment. Then a couple of blogs ran with it and were all "Oh shit, she called him a liar for lying, WHOA", so she followed up on it with "Well yeah, he's a liar, soooooo"
Some Republican consultant is on Hardball, and Matthews asked him about how to deal with the etch a sketch gaff in the general election.
The republican says, "Yeah, you just write 'Obamacare' on it, and shake it. See? It's gone."
That's...actually kinda brilliant.
That could just as easily be a Santorum ad.
You write Romneycare on it, shake it to pretend he was never Gov when Mass created a plan just like Obama's.
Again, it's all just a game to see who can be the most polar opposite of Obama. The GOP leadership loved Romneycare 4 years ago.
And now they are stuck with a guy who recommended the individual mandate on a national scale.
"Thank you for the advice, Mitt" Obama says in the debate. That's going to traumatize some low-info watchers.
The biggest hurdle I think Romney faces is that HHS has given the states TONS of leeway in implementing health care reform, so the argument that it should be a state's decision isn't even that strong (although a state cannot just opt out of the individual mandate).
The big concern for Obama's cam[paign right now (without a Republican nominee to directly campaign against) has to be the not-unlikely chance that the Supreme Court will strike the individual mandate as unconstitutional. It creates narrative momentum for the GOP on the states rights issue, turns every insurance company in the world against the ACA even more than they already are, and creates a clear, direct line to the "freeloading poor" argument that will work excellent well. At the same time it will give solid wins to the Republicans who led the charge against the individual mandate (damn you Rob McKenna).
The other things to be concerned about, like the impending collapse of Europe, are a little less direct in their effect.
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
That would be very bad, policy- and politics-wise, but it is also unlikely, if American Bar Association surveys and general legal discussions are any indications. Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic is blogging about that.
The argument is basically that "Waaaaaah the government could be allowed to force everyone to buy broccoli waaaaah!". Go to Volokh conspiracy and that's the gist of it.
The response to this is "Forcing people to buy broccoli is political suicide, moot point."
I know the hearings are next week, but is there any time-frame for the actual decision?
That would be very bad, policy- and politics-wise, but it is also unlikely, if Bar association surveys and general legal discussions are any indications. The argument is basically that "Waaaaaah the government could be allowed to force everyone to buy broccoli waaaaah!". Go to Volokh conspiracy and that's the gist of it.
The response to this is "Forcing people to buy broccoli is political suicide, moot point."
The law says a lot of things.
Fortunately, at least five of our current Supreme Court Justices don't care what it actually says.
Some Republican consultant is on Hardball, and Matthews asked him about how to deal with the etch a sketch gaff in the general election.
The republican says, "Yeah, you just write 'Obamacare' on it, and shake it. See? It's gone."
That's...actually kinda brilliant.
That could just as easily be a Santorum ad.
You write Romneycare on it, shake it to pretend he was never Gov when Mass created a plan just like Obama's.
Again, it's all just a game to see who can be the most polar opposite of Obama. The GOP leadership loved Romneycare 4 years ago.
And now they are stuck with a guy who recommended the individual mandate on a national scale.
"Thank you for the advice, Mitt" Obama says in the debate. That's going to traumatize some low-info watchers.
The biggest hurdle I think Romney faces is that HHS has given the states TONS of leeway in implementing health care reform, so the argument that it should be a state's decision isn't even that strong (although a state cannot just opt out of the individual mandate).
The big concern for Obama's cam[paign right now (without a Republican nominee to directly campaign against) has to be the not-unlikely chance that the Supreme Court will strike the individual mandate as unconstitutional. It creates narrative momentum for the GOP on the states rights issue, turns every insurance company in the world against the ACA even more than they already are, and creates a clear, direct line to the "freeloading poor" argument that will work excellent well. At the same time it will give solid wins to the Republicans who led the charge against the individual mandate (damn you Rob McKenna).
The other things to be concerned about, like the impending collapse of Europe, are a little less direct in their effect.
From a political standpoint, I am much more concerned that the law will be upheld or that the court will punt and decide that none of the plaintiffs have legal standing until such time as the penalty is actually assessed against a citizen. Losing the case could have serious ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act, but it will also exorcise some of the animosity against the ACA by eliminating it as a cause for conservatives to rally around. If the law is upheld by the court, the only way to get rid of it is by passing a new law and having it signed by a President. That'll motivate the shit out of the Republican base to gain control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.
Some Republican consultant is on Hardball, and Matthews asked him about how to deal with the etch a sketch gaff in the general election.
The republican says, "Yeah, you just write 'Obamacare' on it, and shake it. See? It's gone."
That's...actually kinda brilliant.
That could just as easily be a Santorum ad.
You write Romneycare on it, shake it to pretend he was never Gov when Mass created a plan just like Obama's.
Again, it's all just a game to see who can be the most polar opposite of Obama. The GOP leadership loved Romneycare 4 years ago.
And now they are stuck with a guy who recommended the individual mandate on a national scale.
"Thank you for the advice, Mitt" Obama says in the debate. That's going to traumatize some low-info watchers.
The biggest hurdle I think Romney faces is that HHS has given the states TONS of leeway in implementing health care reform, so the argument that it should be a state's decision isn't even that strong (although a state cannot just opt out of the individual mandate).
The big concern for Obama's cam[paign right now (without a Republican nominee to directly campaign against) has to be the not-unlikely chance that the Supreme Court will strike the individual mandate as unconstitutional. It creates narrative momentum for the GOP on the states rights issue, turns every insurance company in the world against the ACA even more than they already are, and creates a clear, direct line to the "freeloading poor" argument that will work excellent well. At the same time it will give solid wins to the Republicans who led the charge against the individual mandate (damn you Rob McKenna).
The other things to be concerned about, like the impending collapse of Europe, are a little less direct in their effect.
From a political standpoint, I am much more concerned that the law will be upheld or that the court will punt and decide that none of the plaintiffs have legal standing until such time as the penalty is actually assessed against a citizen. Losing the case could have serious ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act, but it will also exorcise some of the animosity against the ACA by eliminating it as a cause for conservatives to rally around. If the law is upheld by the court, the only way to get rid of it is by passing a new law and having it signed by a President. That'll motivate the shit out of the Republican base to gain control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.
You do realize that Obama has already gone on record as saying that if the individual mandate is struck down, the entire bill should be repealed, right? Because without the individual mandate every health insurance company in the country would go bankrupt. And regardless of how much some of us fantasize about that forcing us to single-payer, it's not going to happen.
Wayne Berman, a national finance co-chair for the ex-Massachusetts governor's presidential campaign, told Politico Friday that Santorum is going after Romney with guns blazing in hopes of securing his chances for the next presidential cycle.
"There is a keen awareness in the party, particularly among fund-raisers and elected officials that Santorum is playing to hurt Romney so that Romney loses," Berman said.
"Santorum sees himself as the nominee in 2016, and he's playing a 2016 game. You wouldn't continue to rip at Romney and tear at Romney and try to damage Romney if you were playing the normal, second-place game. The normal second-place approach is to rally around the nominee and become part of the leadership of the party," he added.
Wayne Berman, a national finance co-chair for the ex-Massachusetts governor's presidential campaign, told Politico Friday that Santorum is going after Romney with guns blazing in hopes of securing his chances for the next presidential cycle.
"There is a keen awareness in the party, particularly among fund-raisers and elected officials that Santorum is playing to hurt Romney so that Romney loses," Berman said.
"Santorum sees himself as the nominee in 2016, and he's playing a 2016 game. You wouldn't continue to rip at Romney and tear at Romney and try to damage Romney if you were playing the normal, second-place game. The normal second-place approach is to rally around the nominee and become part of the leadership of the party," he added.
Awesome. They've opted for the "if I can't have it nobody can!" method.
Some Republican consultant is on Hardball, and Matthews asked him about how to deal with the etch a sketch gaff in the general election.
The republican says, "Yeah, you just write 'Obamacare' on it, and shake it. See? It's gone."
That's...actually kinda brilliant.
That could just as easily be a Santorum ad.
You write Romneycare on it, shake it to pretend he was never Gov when Mass created a plan just like Obama's.
Again, it's all just a game to see who can be the most polar opposite of Obama. The GOP leadership loved Romneycare 4 years ago.
And now they are stuck with a guy who recommended the individual mandate on a national scale.
"Thank you for the advice, Mitt" Obama says in the debate. That's going to traumatize some low-info watchers.
The biggest hurdle I think Romney faces is that HHS has given the states TONS of leeway in implementing health care reform, so the argument that it should be a state's decision isn't even that strong (although a state cannot just opt out of the individual mandate).
The big concern for Obama's cam[paign right now (without a Republican nominee to directly campaign against) has to be the not-unlikely chance that the Supreme Court will strike the individual mandate as unconstitutional. It creates narrative momentum for the GOP on the states rights issue, turns every insurance company in the world against the ACA even more than they already are, and creates a clear, direct line to the "freeloading poor" argument that will work excellent well. At the same time it will give solid wins to the Republicans who led the charge against the individual mandate (damn you Rob McKenna).
The other things to be concerned about, like the impending collapse of Europe, are a little less direct in their effect.
From a political standpoint, I am much more concerned that the law will be upheld or that the court will punt and decide that none of the plaintiffs have legal standing until such time as the penalty is actually assessed against a citizen. Losing the case could have serious ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act, but it will also exorcise some of the animosity against the ACA by eliminating it as a cause for conservatives to rally around. If the law is upheld by the court, the only way to get rid of it is by passing a new law and having it signed by a President. That'll motivate the shit out of the Republican base to gain control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.
You do realize that Obama has already gone on record as saying that if the individual mandate is struck down, the entire bill should be repealed, right? Because without the individual mandate every health insurance company in the country would go bankrupt. And regardless of how much some of us fantasize about that forcing us to single-payer, it's not going to happen.
You realize that this had absolutely fuck all to do with what I wrote, right?
Some Republican consultant is on Hardball, and Matthews asked him about how to deal with the etch a sketch gaff in the general election.
The republican says, "Yeah, you just write 'Obamacare' on it, and shake it. See? It's gone."
That's...actually kinda brilliant.
That could just as easily be a Santorum ad.
You write Romneycare on it, shake it to pretend he was never Gov when Mass created a plan just like Obama's.
Again, it's all just a game to see who can be the most polar opposite of Obama. The GOP leadership loved Romneycare 4 years ago.
And now they are stuck with a guy who recommended the individual mandate on a national scale.
"Thank you for the advice, Mitt" Obama says in the debate. That's going to traumatize some low-info watchers.
The biggest hurdle I think Romney faces is that HHS has given the states TONS of leeway in implementing health care reform, so the argument that it should be a state's decision isn't even that strong (although a state cannot just opt out of the individual mandate).
The big concern for Obama's cam[paign right now (without a Republican nominee to directly campaign against) has to be the not-unlikely chance that the Supreme Court will strike the individual mandate as unconstitutional. It creates narrative momentum for the GOP on the states rights issue, turns every insurance company in the world against the ACA even more than they already are, and creates a clear, direct line to the "freeloading poor" argument that will work excellent well. At the same time it will give solid wins to the Republicans who led the charge against the individual mandate (damn you Rob McKenna).
The other things to be concerned about, like the impending collapse of Europe, are a little less direct in their effect.
From a political standpoint, I am much more concerned that the law will be upheld or that the court will punt and decide that none of the plaintiffs have legal standing until such time as the penalty is actually assessed against a citizen. Losing the case could have serious ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act, but it will also exorcise some of the animosity against the ACA by eliminating it as a cause for conservatives to rally around. If the law is upheld by the court, the only way to get rid of it is by passing a new law and having it signed by a President. That'll motivate the shit out of the Republican base to gain control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.
You do realize that Obama has already gone on record as saying that if the individual mandate is struck down, the entire bill should be repealed, right? Because without the individual mandate every health insurance company in the country would go bankrupt. And regardless of how much some of us fantasize about that forcing us to single-payer, it's not going to happen.
You realize that this had absolutely fuck all to do with what I wrote, right?
Hey Sammy, calm the fuck down. I wasn't being snarky. I legitimately wasn't sure if you realized that. And saying "losing the case could have seirous ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act" kinda reinforces that assumption. Being more concerned with the individual mandate being upheld, when the opposite results in total repeal of the ACA doesn't make a whole lotta sense.
Some Republican consultant is on Hardball, and Matthews asked him about how to deal with the etch a sketch gaff in the general election.
The republican says, "Yeah, you just write 'Obamacare' on it, and shake it. See? It's gone."
That's...actually kinda brilliant.
That could just as easily be a Santorum ad.
You write Romneycare on it, shake it to pretend he was never Gov when Mass created a plan just like Obama's.
Again, it's all just a game to see who can be the most polar opposite of Obama. The GOP leadership loved Romneycare 4 years ago.
And now they are stuck with a guy who recommended the individual mandate on a national scale.
"Thank you for the advice, Mitt" Obama says in the debate. That's going to traumatize some low-info watchers.
The biggest hurdle I think Romney faces is that HHS has given the states TONS of leeway in implementing health care reform, so the argument that it should be a state's decision isn't even that strong (although a state cannot just opt out of the individual mandate).
The big concern for Obama's cam[paign right now (without a Republican nominee to directly campaign against) has to be the not-unlikely chance that the Supreme Court will strike the individual mandate as unconstitutional. It creates narrative momentum for the GOP on the states rights issue, turns every insurance company in the world against the ACA even more than they already are, and creates a clear, direct line to the "freeloading poor" argument that will work excellent well. At the same time it will give solid wins to the Republicans who led the charge against the individual mandate (damn you Rob McKenna).
The other things to be concerned about, like the impending collapse of Europe, are a little less direct in their effect.
From a political standpoint, I am much more concerned that the law will be upheld or that the court will punt and decide that none of the plaintiffs have legal standing until such time as the penalty is actually assessed against a citizen. Losing the case could have serious ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act, but it will also exorcise some of the animosity against the ACA by eliminating it as a cause for conservatives to rally around. If the law is upheld by the court, the only way to get rid of it is by passing a new law and having it signed by a President. That'll motivate the shit out of the Republican base to gain control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.
You do realize that Obama has already gone on record as saying that if the individual mandate is struck down, the entire bill should be repealed, right? Because without the individual mandate every health insurance company in the country would go bankrupt. And regardless of how much some of us fantasize about that forcing us to single-payer, it's not going to happen.
You realize that this had absolutely fuck all to do with what I wrote, right?
Hey Sammy, calm the fuck down. I wasn't being snarky. I legitimately wasn't sure if you realized that. And saying "losing the case could have seirous ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act" kinda reinforces that assumption. Being more concerned with the individual mandate being upheld, when the opposite results in total repeal of the ACA doesn't make a whole lotta sense.
You honed in pretty quickly on "losing the case could have serious ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act" and elided right over the part where I started my post with the phrase "From a political standpoint" and then responded to Taramor's post about the relative effects a legal victory or defeat would have on the election itself. The effect that any decision would have on the policy itself has literally nothing to do with the election.
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
Dang, Romney suddenly has a very big lead in Wisconsin, going from 27 to 46 while Santorum goes from 43 to 33. What happened there?
Some Republican consultant is on Hardball, and Matthews asked him about how to deal with the etch a sketch gaff in the general election.
The republican says, "Yeah, you just write 'Obamacare' on it, and shake it. See? It's gone."
That's...actually kinda brilliant.
That could just as easily be a Santorum ad.
You write Romneycare on it, shake it to pretend he was never Gov when Mass created a plan just like Obama's.
Again, it's all just a game to see who can be the most polar opposite of Obama. The GOP leadership loved Romneycare 4 years ago.
And now they are stuck with a guy who recommended the individual mandate on a national scale.
"Thank you for the advice, Mitt" Obama says in the debate. That's going to traumatize some low-info watchers.
The biggest hurdle I think Romney faces is that HHS has given the states TONS of leeway in implementing health care reform, so the argument that it should be a state's decision isn't even that strong (although a state cannot just opt out of the individual mandate).
The big concern for Obama's cam[paign right now (without a Republican nominee to directly campaign against) has to be the not-unlikely chance that the Supreme Court will strike the individual mandate as unconstitutional. It creates narrative momentum for the GOP on the states rights issue, turns every insurance company in the world against the ACA even more than they already are, and creates a clear, direct line to the "freeloading poor" argument that will work excellent well. At the same time it will give solid wins to the Republicans who led the charge against the individual mandate (damn you Rob McKenna).
The other things to be concerned about, like the impending collapse of Europe, are a little less direct in their effect.
From a political standpoint, I am much more concerned that the law will be upheld or that the court will punt and decide that none of the plaintiffs have legal standing until such time as the penalty is actually assessed against a citizen. Losing the case could have serious ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act, but it will also exorcise some of the animosity against the ACA by eliminating it as a cause for conservatives to rally around. If the law is upheld by the court, the only way to get rid of it is by passing a new law and having it signed by a President. That'll motivate the shit out of the Republican base to gain control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.
You do realize that Obama has already gone on record as saying that if the individual mandate is struck down, the entire bill should be repealed, right? Because without the individual mandate every health insurance company in the country would go bankrupt. And regardless of how much some of us fantasize about that forcing us to single-payer, it's not going to happen.
Yeah, with the removal of being to exclude for preexisting conditions, anyone could avoid buying health insurance, period. Then once they actually get sick, buy insurance for some variable amount of time, and drop insurance again once they get healthy. This would be a disaster for health insurance companies, and would probably put them out of business.
One of the premises of the individual mandate is that it makes it possible to get rid of the preexisting conditions exemption, which is a very good thing.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Some Republican consultant is on Hardball, and Matthews asked him about how to deal with the etch a sketch gaff in the general election.
The republican says, "Yeah, you just write 'Obamacare' on it, and shake it. See? It's gone."
That's...actually kinda brilliant.
That could just as easily be a Santorum ad.
You write Romneycare on it, shake it to pretend he was never Gov when Mass created a plan just like Obama's.
Again, it's all just a game to see who can be the most polar opposite of Obama. The GOP leadership loved Romneycare 4 years ago.
And now they are stuck with a guy who recommended the individual mandate on a national scale.
"Thank you for the advice, Mitt" Obama says in the debate. That's going to traumatize some low-info watchers.
The biggest hurdle I think Romney faces is that HHS has given the states TONS of leeway in implementing health care reform, so the argument that it should be a state's decision isn't even that strong (although a state cannot just opt out of the individual mandate).
The big concern for Obama's cam[paign right now (without a Republican nominee to directly campaign against) has to be the not-unlikely chance that the Supreme Court will strike the individual mandate as unconstitutional. It creates narrative momentum for the GOP on the states rights issue, turns every insurance company in the world against the ACA even more than they already are, and creates a clear, direct line to the "freeloading poor" argument that will work excellent well. At the same time it will give solid wins to the Republicans who led the charge against the individual mandate (damn you Rob McKenna).
The other things to be concerned about, like the impending collapse of Europe, are a little less direct in their effect.
From a political standpoint, I am much more concerned that the law will be upheld or that the court will punt and decide that none of the plaintiffs have legal standing until such time as the penalty is actually assessed against a citizen. Losing the case could have serious ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act, but it will also exorcise some of the animosity against the ACA by eliminating it as a cause for conservatives to rally around. If the law is upheld by the court, the only way to get rid of it is by passing a new law and having it signed by a President. That'll motivate the shit out of the Republican base to gain control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.
You do realize that Obama has already gone on record as saying that if the individual mandate is struck down, the entire bill should be repealed, right? Because without the individual mandate every health insurance company in the country would go bankrupt. And regardless of how much some of us fantasize about that forcing us to single-payer, it's not going to happen.
You realize that this had absolutely fuck all to do with what I wrote, right?
Hey Sammy, calm the fuck down. I wasn't being snarky. I legitimately wasn't sure if you realized that. And saying "losing the case could have seirous ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act" kinda reinforces that assumption. Being more concerned with the individual mandate being upheld, when the opposite results in total repeal of the ACA doesn't make a whole lotta sense.
You honed in pretty quickly on "losing the case could have serious ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act" and elided right over the part where I started my post with the phrase "From a political standpoint" and then responded to Taramor's post about the relative effects a legal victory or defeat would have on the election itself. The effect that any decision would have on the policy itself has literally nothing to do with the election.
Even so, I think your response to me was a bit aggressive for what I was saying.
And you don't think that, from a political standpoint, Obama actively pushing for the repeal of the ACA wouldn't be worse than the solidarity created by the individual mandate being upheld?
Posts
If he ever says Obama helped the economy that will be the end of his campaign. There is no other ground to stand on that will be influenced by anything anybody does up to election time.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Just when I think the Democrats can't get any less incompetent they prove me wrong. :evil:
they get more competent?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah. Obama and Howard Dean are very competent IMO. Unfortunately they're very rare Democrats.
The reason I brought up MI's Governor was the "governor they hate" part, not that it matters that they went red last election.
I mean, yeah, they went red for governor and now everyone hates him.
I'm guessing MI is going to go for Obama.
Howard Dean... There is a guy that doesn't get enough credit. His 50 state plan was genius... well not so much genius as how a national party is supposed to act. You challenge every seat you can, no matter how much of a long shot it is. You run Blue Dog DINO's if you have to, even if you can't count on them to vote for you, because having people with a tiny D next to their name gives you power in Washington. Lets face it, as bad as the Blue Dogs are, a republican from most of the same districts would be worse.
Fight to get your case heard, not just wait until the opinion polls go your way(Obama has a big problem there). Don't let the other side frame the debate.
Is it any wonder the Democratic party establishment hate Howard Dean.
I have to agree. 50 state strategy was a great idea. I hate the party bureaucracy that fights against it.
Some Republican consultant is on Hardball, and Matthews asked him about how to deal with the etch a sketch gaff in the general election.
The republican says, "Yeah, you just write 'Obamacare' on it, and shake it. See? It's gone."
That's...actually kinda brilliant.
Video is a year old, so it wasn't sparked by the recent going ons. But still, killing someone because you disagree with them is stupid as fuck.
Rachel Maddow devoted about 20 minutes of her show the other night to the comparison of Romney to an Etch-a-Sketch and absolutely wrecked him on how he lies all the time and with such ease. It was pretty great, I spent today showing the clip to people who actually thought he'd be a good president and seeing all of his primary lies laid out at one time like that, it changed some minds.
It's not difficult to change minds when their opinions weren't based on anything.
That's one of the many frustrating aspects about the primary / politics.
It's true, though.
The base of the GOP is like the shitty people at concert who get all excited when the band mentions the name of the city the concert is in.
"I hope everyone tonight is ready to rock the shit out of . . . . . . PROVIDENCE MOTHERFUCKING RHODE ISLAND!!!"
"WOOOOO! We love you, Foghat!!"
You just need to make up bingo cards with these words:
- Obamacare
- Debt Ceiling
- Socialism
- Drilling
- Family Values
- Tax & Spend
- Fair Share
- Corporate Taxes
- Death Culture
- Exceptionalism
- 2nd Amendment
- Religious Freedom
- State's Rights
- Marriage Amendment
- The Founding Fathers
- Nuclear Family
- Elitists
- Snobs
- Hard-Working
- Bootstraps
- Illegal Immigration
- Cheese Grits
Someone wants a VP nom.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
That could just as easily be a Santorum ad.
You write Romneycare on it, shake it to pretend he was never Gov when Mass created a plan just like Obama's.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Again, it's all just a game to see who can be the most polar opposite of Obama. The GOP leadership loved Romneycare 4 years ago.
And now they are stuck with a guy who recommended the individual mandate on a national scale.
"Thank you for the advice, Mitt" Obama says in the debate. That's going to traumatize some low-info watchers.
The biggest hurdle I think Romney faces is that HHS has given the states TONS of leeway in implementing health care reform, so the argument that it should be a state's decision isn't even that strong (although a state cannot just opt out of the individual mandate).
Two segments, actually. Though the first was more of a prologue and based off the Etch-a-Sketch comment. Then a couple of blogs ran with it and were all "Oh shit, she called him a liar for lying, WHOA", so she followed up on it with "Well yeah, he's a liar, soooooo"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#46816690
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#46829675
The big concern for Obama's cam[paign right now (without a Republican nominee to directly campaign against) has to be the not-unlikely chance that the Supreme Court will strike the individual mandate as unconstitutional. It creates narrative momentum for the GOP on the states rights issue, turns every insurance company in the world against the ACA even more than they already are, and creates a clear, direct line to the "freeloading poor" argument that will work excellent well. At the same time it will give solid wins to the Republicans who led the charge against the individual mandate (damn you Rob McKenna).
The other things to be concerned about, like the impending collapse of Europe, are a little less direct in their effect.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
The argument is basically that "Waaaaaah the government could be allowed to force everyone to buy broccoli waaaaah!". Go to Volokh conspiracy and that's the gist of it.
The response to this is "Forcing people to buy broccoli is political suicide, moot point."
I know the hearings are next week, but is there any time-frame for the actual decision?
The law says a lot of things.
Fortunately, at least five of our current Supreme Court Justices don't care what it actually says.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
From a political standpoint, I am much more concerned that the law will be upheld or that the court will punt and decide that none of the plaintiffs have legal standing until such time as the penalty is actually assessed against a citizen. Losing the case could have serious ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act, but it will also exorcise some of the animosity against the ACA by eliminating it as a cause for conservatives to rally around. If the law is upheld by the court, the only way to get rid of it is by passing a new law and having it signed by a President. That'll motivate the shit out of the Republican base to gain control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.
You do realize that Obama has already gone on record as saying that if the individual mandate is struck down, the entire bill should be repealed, right? Because without the individual mandate every health insurance company in the country would go bankrupt. And regardless of how much some of us fantasize about that forcing us to single-payer, it's not going to happen.
Awesome. They've opted for the "if I can't have it nobody can!" method.
You realize that this had absolutely fuck all to do with what I wrote, right?
Hey Sammy, calm the fuck down. I wasn't being snarky. I legitimately wasn't sure if you realized that. And saying "losing the case could have seirous ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act" kinda reinforces that assumption. Being more concerned with the individual mandate being upheld, when the opposite results in total repeal of the ACA doesn't make a whole lotta sense.
You honed in pretty quickly on "losing the case could have serious ramifications as to the effectiveness of the act" and elided right over the part where I started my post with the phrase "From a political standpoint" and then responded to Taramor's post about the relative effects a legal victory or defeat would have on the election itself. The effect that any decision would have on the policy itself has literally nothing to do with the election.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_republican_presidential_primary-1601.html
Yeah, with the removal of being to exclude for preexisting conditions, anyone could avoid buying health insurance, period. Then once they actually get sick, buy insurance for some variable amount of time, and drop insurance again once they get healthy. This would be a disaster for health insurance companies, and would probably put them out of business.
One of the premises of the individual mandate is that it makes it possible to get rid of the preexisting conditions exemption, which is a very good thing.
... This is the lamest nostalgia play ever.
Even so, I think your response to me was a bit aggressive for what I was saying.
And you don't think that, from a political standpoint, Obama actively pushing for the repeal of the ACA wouldn't be worse than the solidarity created by the individual mandate being upheld?
I am smart.
I continue to be impressed at how awful Rick Santorum is at the basics of running a campaign.
To be fair, being outspent 55 to 1 isn't really something even a skilled campaign is likely to overcome.