The hot news today was a story at National Journal about how the Romney campaign supposedly was Declaring Cease Fire on Health Care:
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court health care ruling, the early conventional wisdom was that an unfavorable health care ruling at the court would be good for Republicans politically, even as it was a serious policy setback for conservatives. But that’s not shaping up to be the case. Mitt Romney, after giving a brief statement decrying the decision, has been virtually silent on criticizing the health care law. He’s been on vacation and his campaign has been giving off clear signals that it doesn’t want to make health care a major part of the election….
For an issue that’s supposedly potent against Democrats, Romney’s campaign isdeclaring a cease fire. This, even as the law polls unfavorably and it proved to be a motivating force for Republicans and disaffected independents in the 2010 midterms.
It’s becoming clear that Romney has decided to focus on the economy at the expense of everything else, even issues that could play to his political benefit….
Needless to say, the headline and verbiage inflamed many on the right side, but when I read the article, it looked like very little fact reporting and a lot of conclusions.
The “declaring a ceasefire” language was that of the author, not the Romney campaign, and the embedded hyperlink where those words appeared was to a Washington Post article about how Romney supposedly “sided” with Obama about whether the mandate was a tax (see my post yesterday).
The Romney campaign is denying any ceasefire, via Byron York:
I wonder which Josh Kraushaar this is who is quoted.
There was a Josh Kraushaar who advised Herman Cain at some point.
Was he the same guy?
And how does he KNOW what he writes?
Who is he close to in the campaign of Romney?
Then the LATimes quotes from a Keiser telephone poll that never admits how many were Dems/Ind/Repubs but weighs the results through those designations.
Gee, am I supposed to think I should drop opposition to ObamaCare because some poll with squishy methodology says they think America should?
I don’t think so.
This is a beautiful example of Obama’s OTHER favorite fallacy.
His #1 fav is still the Straw Man.
But you getting on the bandwagon is a close 2nd!
Don’t fall for these types of articles that try to make you feel like the outlier.
Obama wishes you were, but you aren’t.
From that last bit from Byron York:
A laughable circular firing squad exists. Repub. National Chair says it’s a tax. Romney says it’s not a tax(RomneyCare). Half Conservs. wanna crucify Roberts anti-Constitutional decision(possible epileptic fit?), half heap praise for saddling Obamacare as a massive tax.
Half wanna stick to “it’s the economy stupid”, half wanna talk social issues and the “shame” of politics discussed in Church.
It will probably get worse as Repubs.attempt to steal defeat from the jaws of victory.
Sorry, the GOP has once again brought a Labrador to a Pitt-bull fight, they deserve to be held accountable. Mindlessly following the party anointed leader without question is the way of the other side and it is the way to ruin.
@Richard Wheeler:
You are correct in one respect, Rich. That firing squad already exists. If the GOP were to take a page from the liberal/progressive Democratic playbook, all dissent against the candidate would be outlawed and dissappear via threat and coercion. Now, while that may nearly guarantee a GOP victory in November, it is nothing more than an example of how freedom of thought is being attacked in our country.
J.G. Wasn’t aware Dems. had outlawed all dissent.These posts have identified a number of Dems.( mostly Southern and up for re-election) not in lock step with BHO.
@Richard Wheeler:
How soon you forget the coronation of Obama as the Dems candidate in 08′ and the end of attacks by other Dem pols and the media. No more was heard about the questions Hillary’s campaign raised about him, by liberal/progressives, was it?
As for the ones identified in the other topic, both parties will have their independent thinkers, but by and large dissent is severely frowned upon.
My belief is that Romney has been thrust upon the American populace by the professional politicians in charge as an attempt at an acceptable compromise to Obama. Realizing that Obama’s reign as President has been successful as far as providing another mechanism of control, but disastrous as far as actual control, Romney will loosen the perceived yoke on the citizenry while tightening it in other, less conspicuous areas, thereby placating the masses somewhat but allowing control over them to be reinstated.
Conspiratorial? Paranoid? Maybe. Possibly. Try distancing yourself from the “fight”, self-reflect on the values you hold dear to your heart, and then take a truly objective view of what both “sides” are doing, or saying. You might just come to the same conclusion.
What is a shame is that the truly independent pols, whether they have an ‘R’, or a ‘D’, by their name are being overlooked because they are somehow either not crazy enough for the liberal/progressive ‘D’s in charge, or too “crazy” for the ‘R’s in charge. Those who are Democrats are derided for not pushing social reforms enough, and those who are Republicans are derided, falsely, for wishing to push “conservative” social reforms.
We are being ‘led’, in government, by one side that pushes the envelope on social engineering to extremes, and the other side that, while not going to extremes, still pushes social engineering, but is accused of extremism from the right. And the people who are under fire the most are those like me who simply wish the government to back off.
I am accused of being an ‘extreme’ right winger simply because I wish a return to Constitutional values. I get falsely accused of wishing a return to slavery and men dominating women, by people who don’t have clue one as to the intent of the founders in that document. Revisionist history and ignorance is used to beat me over the head into submission by those wanting complete control. And people like Lib1, Larry, Greg, and yourself are duped into helping with the beatings.
All people like me want, and wish, is to be left alone, as much as possible, to our own devices, to live our lives according to how we wish to live them. And all we get are the pols, from both sides, reaching into our pockets, into our garages, into our homes, grasping away at our wealth, our pasttimes, and the influence we wish to impart on our children. I am sick and tired of being played the fool by the GOP, and being villified by the Democrats. And people like yourself, who claim mantles of wisdom about themselves facilitate that by willful ignorance. People like you, Rich, have taken a beautiful movement like the TEA party and, with the help of liberal/progressives from both parties, have created a false perception of it, ostracizing it from mainstream acceptance because it doesn’t fit your idea of government control over our lives. Your ignorance over what drove the anger creating it is exemplified by your derision of it.
Sorry for the rant but I am extremely angry at politicians in general, and willful ignorance of the masses. I don’t expect everyone to believe everything I believe in. On the contrary, that is what makes our country so great. What I do expect, however, is for people not to lie to themselves, and others, about what freedom and liberty actually mean.
J.G You seem to align most closely with the Tea Party and are upset with those who perceive them as merely the right wing of the Republican Party. Honestly, I have not seen demographics that would have me believe otherwise.
I see candidates like O’Donnell and that gal in Nev.and cringe.I absolutely can’t get behind Palin or Bachmann. I see these folks as spokespeople for the T.P. Am I wrong?
BTW You know I DO think highly of Marco Rubio. Would you favor Rubio/Rice 2016?
Rich, according to RCP’s article today, Rubio isn’t on the short list, but remains on the secondary considerations.
As I’ve said before, don’t think he’s going to choose Rubio. And I’m not entirely convinced that Rubio wants to be chosen for the Veep slot. If he’s aiming for a 2016 top dog position of POTUS, he won’t do his creds any favors, hitching his post to Romney this year. Add to that, he needs more of a record. His “experience” is parallel to Obama’s, with about the same time in the State legislative body, but without the community organizing. He is also another law grad, but I don’t know if he ever sought bar membership. Plus he’s still got a bit of cleaning up to do with accusations against him now INRE financing.
Romney’s short list, according to RCP? Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. The last two work for me, likely meaning he’ll choose one of the first two.
@Richard Wheeler:
What is obvious with that statement is that you believe GOP equals conservatism. You could not be more wrong on that account. The GOP, meaning the establishment GOP, is far removed from conservative beliefs, Rich. But go ahead and either continue to swallow the lies from the MSM, or the crap being pushed by the left. Just know that by doing so you are remaining willfully ignorant.
Two things with those statements, Rich.
-One, it shows that you willingly swallow what is spoonfed to you by the MSM, including FOX, and whatever the liberal/progressives say about them.
-Two, it shows that you willingly swallow the idea that these politicians speak for the people like me. What you don’t understand is what precipitated the TEA party movement. It didn’t precipitate as a response to Obama’s election. It wasn’t started by multi-billionaire corporatists as others suggest. It wasn’t a formation of people intent on protesting Democrats.
What started the TEA party movement was an underlying anger at government in general, stepping further and further into the lives of citizens across the country, instituting ever tightening control on the freedom and liberty allowable to us. Face it, Rich. You’ve bought the pols definition of what constitutes the movement hook, line, and sinker. And, unfortunately, you weren’t the only one who has. The movement has a stigma attached to it that it doesn’t deserve, and prevents otherwise inclined people from supporting it. You aren’t dumb, Rich. And neither is Larry or Greg or even Ivan(who hates the TEA party nearly as much as liberal/progressives do). No, you all have bought the line handed by politicians like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Waters, and all the rest of the professional pols who are intent on destruction of freedom and liberty.
Oh, you’ll say you are for freedom and liberty, and give examples of liberal/progressive pols that you adore and support, and then give some platitude as to how true conservatives are really the ones who wish to invade and destroy freedom and liberty. Or, you’ll talk about how we either place too much emphasis on freedom and liberty in today’s society, or that our definition is different than yours.
Know this, Rich. There is no compromise on freedom and liberty. In order to have full freedom and liberty, people must be allowed not only to succeed on their own, but to fail as well. And the liberal/progressive idea of control removes that chance of failure. What else can one call that except control. Remember, conservatives aren’t the ones wishing to control people’s salt intake, or sugar intake. Conservatives aren’t the ones who push for reward simply for participating in sports or competition. Conservatives aren’t the ones wanting to take away choice in health care, what car you drive, or what you do for recreation. Those are all ideas and thoughts pushed by liberal/progressives, and all of them involve control over some aspect, or numerous aspects, of your life.
Liberal/progressives are control freaks, and both major parties are full of people like that.
Rubio? I’d rather have Jindal who told the federal government they could suck it when it came to Obamacare!
J.G If Conservatives are not the right wing of the Republican Party they should stop identifying with and supporting Palin,Santorum,O’Donnell etc
Have the guts to form a 3rd Party with leaders you can support.
J.G. Your continued mantra that I am a dupe of that treacherous MSM (duly noted you’ve thrown in Fox) is insulting and fallacious.
BTW I fought for freedom and liberty in the jungles of V.N. and I am as much a Patriot as any flag draped Conserv. you know.
@johngalt:
Well said JG.
Mata In the long run,as you’ve noted, it’s good for Rubio if NOT picked by Mitt. Portman of Ohio is next best choice to win. Don’t believe Pawlenty,or Jindal will help.
Ryan with his youthful enthusiasm could be a sleeper.
Rumors today that Mrs. Mitt is pushing a distaff side choice.Can Condi be coerced? A winning ticket.
Rich, Romney’s veep will neither help, nor hurt him. Those that are voting ABO will vote ABO. O’devotees will still vote O. Nothing’s changed, and it will depend upon swing voters deciding whether Romney is better equipped to hand the nation’s economy, or Obama.
Mata Disagree. Romney must win Ohio AND Fla. to become Prez. Portman and Rubio’s home state popularity can help. Pawlenty can’t convert Minn. and he’s more boring than Mitt..Jindal is perceived as divisive and La. already solid red. Condi could bring Indies in droves and reduce large Dem. majority among all women especially African American women.IMHO she would assure Romney win. Rubio or Portman would make him a slight favorite.
Otherwise, I see his battle as extremely uphill. We’ll see.
Curt I continue to believe that to win Romney must stick to “it’s the economy stupid” over and over and eschew the social debate as much as possible.
No problem that you disagree, Rich. But the dynamics of a Romney/Rubio ticket have been in play for a while now. Rubio was at high approval rating of about 44% back last fall. Since then, they’ve been on the decline due to a couple of factors… dropping 4 points in just four months. Why? They believe he was fudging the truth about his parents immigration story, and his financial ethics accusations still rumble.
Who was the last veep that had ethics problems on their platter? uh… lemme think… LOL
This is evidenced by Quinnipiac’s May 2012 poll reports INRE the veep in three key swing states… OH, FL and PA.
Which state do you want to give deference to, Rich? ‘Cus the veep choice differs in all. With these poll numbers in the states, either Rubio or Christie would be acceptable for all three.
Does Christie have declining numbers? Is Christie facing ethics investigations? Does Christie have a track record for administrative budget cutting over a year and a half of Congressional representation?
If Mitt had to narrow it down to two, consider experience, vetting, risks and conservative creds, Christie would win hands down. But, according to RCP, he’s not on the short list… how about them apples?
Mata Mitt pretty big underdog in Pa. He doesn’t need it. He needs Ohio and Fla where as you noted it’s a statistical toss-up. Rubio secures Fl.: Portman Ohio Dual Veeps?
Christie can’t bring Pa. or truly blue N.J. Does he enthuse Repub. base? Anne Coulter loves him. Ouch.
Any how Christie not on short list. BHO said today “Secret to a good marraige is listening to your wife”– Mitt LISTEN TO YOUR WIFE DRAFT CONDI
Rich, the veep isn’t a deciding factor for the ballot… merely an enthusiam factor. As I said, Rubio’s numbers are on the way down. Rubio’s been lobbying to have his 2010 ethics complaint closed. All in all, a risk for Romney. And the reason I believe that Rubio isn’t interested in the veep slot, or that he’s not on the official short list and continues to be “vetted”. Post 2008/Palin and just the suggestion of impropriety, however untrue, and it’s not going to be a risk that Romney is going to take. Sorry. You can stick with your prediction. I’ll stick with mine. I’d say we’ll know soon enough.
Mata Don’t believe I ever predicted Rubio pick a certainty. Suggested that ticket had a good chance of winning. I believe a Portman or even better a Rice pick makes Romney the favorite.
Believe you predicted a Romney defeat no matter the Veep.I think he can win.
@Richard Wheeler:
You’ve got it nearly backwards, Rich. Although, if one listens, or watches, or reads, the MSM, your conclusion is the one they come to. The problem is that many of the pols you continue to mention are nearly as far away from conservatism as you seem to be. And yet, anyone even a smidgeon to the right, even if only on a handful of issues, is railed against as an extreme right-winger. To the liberal/progressives, anyone not fully in their camp is lumped in with conservatives.
You can cry foul all you want, Rich. I only call them as I see ’em. When you stop repeating/reiterating the points and ideas thrown out by the MSM, maybe I’ll reconsider. Until then, if the shoe fits, then wear it.
And of course this should have been expected by you. Anytime someone calls into question something about you, you bring up your service. Big deal Rich. I have service time too but you don’t see me bringing it up to use as some kind of defense against something someone says about me. Not to mention that there have been more than a few persons, without any military service whatsoever, who have given more to this country than should be expected of them. Yes, I salute your service, Rich. But don’t go using it as some kind of trump card against criticism. You might have known at one time what freedom and liberty actually meant, Rich, but since I’ve been here, and read your comments over the years, it seems to me that you must have forgotten somewhere along the way what real freedom and liberty mean.
J.G. Once again your frankly boring MSM mantra. If not Palin,Santorum name a couple of Conservs. you could align with.
Again you say I don’t know the meaning of “REAL freedom and liberty” How arrogant you can be J.G. My Marine Corps service IS a trump card against those who didn’t serve yet question my understanding of freedom, liberty and duty to country. Thank you for your Naval service.
btw Where should I be getting the news now that you’ve debunked Fox.
@Richard Wheeler:
I gave you one above, Rich. And I’m sure there are others out there I would fully support.
Arrogant? I’m not the one supporting the pols who would tell you how to live your life, when to do what you wish to do, require government to license it all, and penalize(tax) you for not doing as government directs. I’m not the one who supported a law built on the arrogance of government, as Obamacare is.
That isn’t freedom and liberty, Rich. Freedom and liberty doesn’t require anything of a person except that they be allowed to make a choice. And when choice is removed, or limited, by government edict, the citizenry loses freedom and liberty.
As defined, freedom and liberty, as applies to citizens’ actions and words, means free from restraint, or control. It means to have choice in the matter.
Yet, you support pols who would use the hammer of government to limit, or remove choice. Pols who would place restraint upon citizens wishing to engage in an action. Pols who would CONTROL the citizens’ actions and words by outlawing that which government cannot abide.
And you still believe that you are for freedom and liberty. Dream on, Rich.
@Richard Wheeler:
No, Rich, it’s not. Nor is my Naval service, nor my father’s, nor my grandfather’s, nor my brother’s, nor my older brother’s Marine Corps service. And you called me arrogant? You are the one using some past history you engaged in to project superiority over others, Rich. That is the very definition of the word.
Somewhere along the way you lost your sense of what constitutes freedom and liberty, Rich. Somewhere along the way you gained a misguided belief that freedom and liberty is defined by what government allows you to do, that the choices the government gives you should be the only choices you need. That government should be allowed to restrain one’s actions, even if it’s in that citizens own best interest.
Somewhere along the way, Rich, you started believing that a nanny-state government was what freedom and liberty are all about.
Why do I say this? Because you continue to support, through your written words, pols who believe in those very things.
@Richard Wheeler:
And that question is why you don’t understand my points about the MSM, Rich. It’s not where you should be getting your news. It’s about questioning the news story’s validity once you’ve heard or read it.
J.G. says “I gave you ONE above” Hidden? Who? What others?
Thanks for dictionary definitions of liberties and freedom. I HAD NO IDEA
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler:
From #8 above;
I think it is very clear that you didn’t have any idea, since you support pols whose idea of freedom and liberty is the antithesis of the accepted definitions.
When you support a pol, Rich, you should do so based on principles that you hold dear. If you hold freedom and liberty so dear, you should know the definitions of such. And if the pols you support do not show that they hold those principles to the same standard as you do, then your support for them should end.
And since your support for such pols hasn’t ended, either you don’t know the meaning of freedom or liberty, OR, you don’t hold them as dear as you profess.
J.G. Jindal is currently campaigning with Pawlenty in Ohio for Romney. He may well get the Veep nod from Mitt. I can see why you like him but don’t feel he can put Romney over the top against BHO.
As you know he had the misfortune of delivering the Repub. response to BHO’S election night speech. A tough slot for anyone. A Rhodes scholar and defender of the environment. The son of immigrant parents. He’s a very solid guy. Anyone else?
johngalt
yes, many believe you, and so much that you are one of the fews, that I DON’T HAVE TO SEE YOUR NAME BEFORE DECIDING ON THE APPRECIATION OF YOUR COMMENTS,
they have your character and send a solid messages in all that you are telling the truth and this come from deep within you, that is your signature always, you have never miss one,
so allow me to say what I think of you, it’s about time is in it?
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Thank you Ms. Bees for the kind words.