Mitt Romney or not, GOP is coming for ‘Obamacare’ - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74629_Page2.html
.....“The debate right now is fundamental and there’s one candidate in this race who can actually make the contrast that is necessary to take the Republican position, conservative position,” Santorum said outside the Supreme Court on Monday. “There is one candidate who is disqualified to make the case.” RRD:I am not a Santorum supporter,(he has problems of his own),but Santorum,(and Gary Johnson and Ron Paul,when you can find coverage of them),are correct,this is a fundamental moral issue and one of Individual Rights and the GOP is reverting full-bore to its suicidal mee-tooism that helped give us Obamacare.
For why this is a disaster see:
“Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” by John David Lewis
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/obamas-atomic-bomb.asp
....”Romney and his aides view things differently: Since the outset of his 2012 run, they have privately predicted that “Romneycare” would be an asset in the general election that could help cast Romney as a kinder, gentler kind of Republican that swing voters can embrace. More recently, Romney has sought to reassure conservatives by vowing to scrap the federal law “root and branch,” though he has also pointed to the Massachusetts law as an example of his compassion as a governor.” RRD:From the "Etch-a-sketch” comment to this,(assuming it is accurate),the man's own campaign is vindicating the predictions and fears of his critics.
....”Regardless of how swing voters ultimately view the Massachusetts law, it still presents a quandary for the rest of the Republican Party, which has typically been able to paint in the broadest of rhetorical strokes when discussing the federal law and its impact on individual rights. And softening Romney’s image is not necessarily an urgent priority for Republicans focused on the House and Senate.”...
RRD:Translation:Romney will kick the legs out from under our efforts to defeat statism,and Republicans in the House and Senate are frightened that Romney will so alienate the GOP Base that they will not vote,and Congressional Republicans will be slaughtered in 2012.
If true,such is the "practicality" of the GOP. "Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, a Romney endorser who has also brought suit against the federal law, said that the party would have to be “slightly more nuanced” in its health care messaging with Romney at the top of the ticket.
RRD:Those who participated in the 2008 campaign know exactly what is meant by "nuanced":Self-defeating hypocritical partisanship that,at best,undercuts the efforts of those of us who oppose and condemn the Individual Mandate on principle,and at worst leads some to sell their souls by shilling for a position that they never would have taken had not a Republican taken it. “There are people that, as a matter of public policy, think they shouldn’t be required by anybody to do anything,” he said. “As a matter of public policy, those guys are goners. But I think there’s a lot of people in between that understand the difference, where states can make their own decisions.” RRD:"There are people that, as a matter of public policy, think they shouldn’t be required by anybody to do anything",indeed,they include the Founding Fathers,Objectivists,Libertarians,and a significant portion of the Teaparty and Conservatives;including some of the most dedicated,passionate and energetic activists.And what does he mean by "goners"?That they will not vote for Romney?
Not true,I will not,but I know many who believe that Romney is the "lesser of two evils".
Or does he mean "goners" in that they are marginal figures?If the latter then he has it backwards:the argument that the Individual Mandate violates individual rights is what has motivated people to oppose it,(due to their vestigial knowledge of,and respect for,the concept of individual rights),it is the narrow,legalistic argument that does not have wide backing.(And don't get me started on the absurdist irony of the "states can make their own decisions";on what?Whether to violate individual rights?On the Individual Mandate?On Forced segregation?On Forced abortions?On Eugenics?On Slavery?)
.....“The debate right now is fundamental and there’s one candidate in this race who can actually make the contrast that is necessary to take the Republican position, conservative position,” Santorum said outside the Supreme Court on Monday. “There is one candidate who is disqualified to make the case.” RRD:I am not a Santorum supporter,(he has problems of his own),but Santorum,(and Gary Johnson and Ron Paul,when you can find coverage of them),are correct,this is a fundamental moral issue and one of Individual Rights and the GOP is reverting full-bore to its suicidal mee-tooism that helped give us Obamacare.
For why this is a disaster see:
“Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” by John David Lewis
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/obamas-atomic-bomb.asp
....”Romney and his aides view things differently: Since the outset of his 2012 run, they have privately predicted that “Romneycare” would be an asset in the general election that could help cast Romney as a kinder, gentler kind of Republican that swing voters can embrace. More recently, Romney has sought to reassure conservatives by vowing to scrap the federal law “root and branch,” though he has also pointed to the Massachusetts law as an example of his compassion as a governor.” RRD:From the "Etch-a-sketch” comment to this,(assuming it is accurate),the man's own campaign is vindicating the predictions and fears of his critics.
....”Regardless of how swing voters ultimately view the Massachusetts law, it still presents a quandary for the rest of the Republican Party, which has typically been able to paint in the broadest of rhetorical strokes when discussing the federal law and its impact on individual rights. And softening Romney’s image is not necessarily an urgent priority for Republicans focused on the House and Senate.”...
RRD:Translation:Romney will kick the legs out from under our efforts to defeat statism,and Republicans in the House and Senate are frightened that Romney will so alienate the GOP Base that they will not vote,and Congressional Republicans will be slaughtered in 2012.
If true,such is the "practicality" of the GOP. "Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, a Romney endorser who has also brought suit against the federal law, said that the party would have to be “slightly more nuanced” in its health care messaging with Romney at the top of the ticket.
RRD:Those who participated in the 2008 campaign know exactly what is meant by "nuanced":Self-defeating hypocritical partisanship that,at best,undercuts the efforts of those of us who oppose and condemn the Individual Mandate on principle,and at worst leads some to sell their souls by shilling for a position that they never would have taken had not a Republican taken it. “There are people that, as a matter of public policy, think they shouldn’t be required by anybody to do anything,” he said. “As a matter of public policy, those guys are goners. But I think there’s a lot of people in between that understand the difference, where states can make their own decisions.” RRD:"There are people that, as a matter of public policy, think they shouldn’t be required by anybody to do anything",indeed,they include the Founding Fathers,Objectivists,Libertarians,and a significant portion of the Teaparty and Conservatives;including some of the most dedicated,passionate and energetic activists.And what does he mean by "goners"?That they will not vote for Romney?
Not true,I will not,but I know many who believe that Romney is the "lesser of two evils".
Or does he mean "goners" in that they are marginal figures?If the latter then he has it backwards:the argument that the Individual Mandate violates individual rights is what has motivated people to oppose it,(due to their vestigial knowledge of,and respect for,the concept of individual rights),it is the narrow,legalistic argument that does not have wide backing.(And don't get me started on the absurdist irony of the "states can make their own decisions";on what?Whether to violate individual rights?On the Individual Mandate?On Forced segregation?On Forced abortions?On Eugenics?On Slavery?)
No comments:
Post a Comment