Originally Posted By TomSawyer During the convention: on day 1, he's going to repeal Obamacare. Today, on Meet the Press, when asked about insurance for young adults under their parents plan or for those with pre-existing conditions: "I'll keep the good parts of Obamacare." This afternoon, campaign spokesman: Romney hasn't changed his position. The free market will decide whether or not to provide insurance to young adults under parent's plan or to those with preexisting conditions. So he tells his base at the RNC that he's going to repeal Obamacare. He tells the general public on Meet the Press that he's going to keep the parts of Obamacare that people understand and like. Then his press spokesman says, "not so much." And, of course, what the press spokesman says is not going to be heard by the people that Romney lied to during Meet the Press. This man doesn't have an honest bone in his body. He's just telling people what he thinks they want to hear.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^^What do you expect from a Robber Baron, Corporate Raider scumbag like him?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<This man doesn't have an honest bone in his body. He's just telling people what he thinks they want to hear.>> Ditto for Ryan, who lied once again about voting for the defense cuts he claimed he didn't vote for: <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/09/09/816861/ryan-i-didnt-vote-for-the-defense-cuts-i-voted-for/" target="_blank">http://thinkprogress.org/secur...ted-for/</a> <> Ryan: I Didn’t Vote For The Defense Cuts I Voted For By Zack Beauchamp on Sep 9, 2012 at 12:13 pm Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan has gotten in hot water before for criticizing President Obama for the very same defense cuts that he voted for in 2011. When confronted with this incongruity today on Face The Nation, Ryan simply denied that he ever voted for the cuts, telling an incredulous Norah O’Donnell that he didn’t actually vote for the cuts he’s on record as voting for: O’DONNELL: Now you’re criticizing the President for those same defense cuts you’re voting for and called a victory. RYAN: No, no — I have to correct on you this, Norah. I voted for a mechanism that says the sequester will occur if we don’t cut $1.2 trillion in government. … We can get into this nomenclature; I voted for the Budget Control Act. But the Obama Administration proposed $478 billion in defense cuts. We don’t agree with that, our budget rejected that, and then on top of that is another $500 billion in defense cuts in the sequester. O’DONNELL: Right. A trillion dollars in defense spending, and you voted for it! RYAN: No, Norah. I voted for the Budget Control Act. O’DONNELL: That included defense spending! RYAN: Norah, you’re mistaken. O’Donnell is, in fact, not mistaken. The Budget Control Act, as passed, included both the roughly $600 billion in “sequestration” cuts that will happen if there’s no compromise on the budget by December as well as the $487 billion of military-supported cuts that will take place regardless. The fact that Ryan may have wished that the bill didn’t contain said defense cuts does not absolve him of the fact that he and 201 other Republicans voted for the bill as-passed. Moreover, Ryan’s statement after voting for the bill contained not a single word of criticism about the defense cuts. As O’Donnell correctly noted, Ryan said the bill “represents a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy” and that “The agreement – while far from perfect – underscores the extent to which the new House majority has successfully changed Washington’s culture of spending.” It’s at best misleading, and at worst an outright lie, for Ryan to assert that voting for the Budget Control Act did not mean voting for defense cuts. <> Team Romney is reeking of desperation to be lying at this level. Hopefully, the American public will realize before November that they're being played for suckers by these corporate puppets.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Hopefully, the American public will realize before November that they're being played for suckers by these corporate puppets. >>> If the current polls are to be believed, all we need with a high degree of probability is for people to continue to view the situation as they do today, and Obama will win the election. And, unless there's a major bombshell either way, there are only about 10 states that are undecided at this point. So the real question is, will Team Romney's efforts to "turn it up to 11" be effective at swaying a net number of voters to his side in those 10 or so swing states? That's what it all comes down to at this point. Remember that single memorable line which more or less sunk Kerry in 2004: "I voted for [it] before I voted against it." We don't have quite that smoking gun these days, because Romney never acknowledges that he ever changes positions on anything, nor that any of his stated opinions are inconsistent. But perhaps there are enough media clips that can be assembled into enough commercials such that if they are run relentlessly in the swing states, it will not be able to escape anyone's attention that you can't believe what he says. That won't sway voters that are set in their ways and will vote for Romney no matter what, but the election never comes down to those folks anyway.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The PACs behind Romney are going to be spending a ton of money on advertising over the next few months but I have a feeling that it's not going to be very effective. Right now, Romney and Ryan are becoming the same kind of laughing stock that Palin became because of their lies and flip-flopping and flip-flop-flipping. Romney's statement on Meet the Press is just an example of how desperate the campaign is becoming - they suddenly noticed that people like parts of Obamacare and that they don't want to see them go away. I think that we can expect to see more of Romney's statements reflect their desperation not to be seen as beholden to the extreme right. All the Obama campaign and Obama PACs have to do is run ads showing Romney's own shifting positions on various subjects. The man has more positions of a given topic than his great-great-grandfather had wives.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan There are a whole lot of voters who either are in the 18-26 bracket, or have kids or grandkids who are. If Obamacare is repealed, they'll be without insurance suddenly. Romney the Governor of Massachusetts knew this, so he must have had a dialogue with Mitt the Eternal Candidate. Hence, the flip on the flip-flop. Plus, as I have been saying since 2008, Romney will say absolutely anything to get elected. Just for fun, watch for the nervous "I'm trying too hard" chuckle next time he tries for a quip. He reminds me of Milburn Drysdale with that desperate, nervous laugh.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan No, I think it makes him Sonny (Milburn's whiney stepson, played by Louis Nye.) Wow, I know too much Beverly Hillbillies trivia.
Originally Posted By utahjosh What is the big problem with wanting to repeal it, and still liking parts of it?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan What is the big problem with wanting to repeal it, and still liking parts of it?<< Well, is he going to repeal it, or replace it, or what? Different answers on different days. This guy will say anything to any audience, so who can know what he truly intends to do. It could be that he'll govern in a more moderate way, as he did in Mass. Or, he could be a "severe conservative" as he know claims to be (some days). It's this lack of clarity and honesty that caused the GOP to grudgingly give him the nomination. They don't like him, but they hate Obama more. I'm not sure that's great for the country.
Originally Posted By ecdc The big problem is there's nothing in the law worth repealing, and Romney knows this, but still has to say he wants to repeal it. Even though it's just like Romneycare. (Yeah, I've heard the states argument; it makes no sense.) The only thing remotely controversial about the law (remember, Josh, Obamacare is nearly identical to the Republican plan offered in the '90s as the antidote to the Clinton healthcare proposal) is the individual mandate. But Ezra Klein demonstrated pretty effectively that any healthcare reform is worthless without it, especially the ban on denial over pre-existing conditions.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The big problem, as 2oony pointed out, is that we have no idea what Romney wants to do with it. His campaign released three different positions yesterday alone. I'll keep part of it. No, we'll let the free market decide what it keeps and what it won't. No, we'll keep part of it but only for people that are already insured. The problem is that we just don't know what the guy actually thinks about anything.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>What is the big problem with wanting to repeal it, and still liking parts of it?<< Why do you keep trying to like this compulsive liar so much, Josh? Other than because he's a member of your club?
Originally Posted By ecdc Josh, here's an answer to your question worth reading. Seriously, it's not from DailyKos or Thinkprogress. Give it a look. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/10/when-being-vague-backfires/" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...ckfires/</a> >>Among the most popular parts of President Obama’s health reforms is the protection for people with preexisting conditions. So Romney wants to keep that bit. The problem with keeping that bit, as Romney knows full well, is that if you don’t let insurers turn away people with preexisting conditions, you need some way to keep healthy people from only buying insurance once they get sick. That means you need an individual mandate, or something like it. And if you’re going to have some sort of mandate-like policy, you need subsidies to help people afford the insurance the government is now pushing them to buy. And so, soon enough, you’ve got Obamacare — or, as it was known in Massachusetts, Romneycare.<<
Originally Posted By andyll <<What is the big problem with wanting to repeal it, and still liking parts of it?>> Because you can't keep the popular... but expensive parts of the plan to insurance companies without the mandate. Even the Obama administration said if the mandate was struck down by the court the whole thing would have to go.
Originally Posted By andyll Romney flip-flops so often and so fast that if you could attach a generator to him our energy crisis would be solved. On a more serious note... Romney's Sundays actions should scare the hell out of everyone. Within hours of saying something positive about an Obama policy that the tea baggers hate he was forced to reverse his direction. If elected there is no doubt he will be controlled by the far right.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer He said something positive about Obamacare in a venue where those who aren't following the election that closely would hear him. They retracted the statement on a conservative website, and it has been lightly reported in the media. I don't think he changed his direction - he just told a lie to one audience hoping to sway a few votes.
